Prethen

Any chance anyone knows of a downloadable or online version of the numbering concordance?

I tried soaking in acetone for a couple of hours, used a cotton swap, and nothing came off...not a spec (even with some slightly aggressive prodding with a toothpick). The residue sort of makes me think of it as molten lava that's adhered itself to the surface. Maybe it is tarnish blooms or carbon. To be honest, it really doesn't matter all that much as this is really just a gold bullion coin, so it was more as an experiment and to see if I could turn the coin somewhat pristine again. I guess I'm out of luck on that.

There's some sort of blacky, ink-like residue on this 1976 Australian 1000 Schilling gold (90%) coin. Under power it does not appear as toning but rather some sort of substance on the coin. What can safely remove it? I'm out of acetone, otherwise I would have tried that already. I tried using a cotton swab and some denatured alcohol without effect.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

It was August of 2006. I got the hint that he passed when I saw a coin that was offered noting it was from the ex-Mark Bir Collection.

I know he dealt in coins of the old Americas and sea salvaged coins. I dealt with him either at a Denver ANA show or local Denver regional show some years ago.

This is the thing that really causes me a lot of concern/thought. If I think it really doesn't belong in a Details holder (perhaps the signs of cleaning are not that bad/obvious/problematic for the overall appearance) because that would doom the coin to be decisively discounted, then I need to break it out. But then I don't wish to give the appearance I'm trying to "put one over" on anyone. If I'm going to point out the hairlines/whatever, then I might as well leave it in the holder and suffer the subsequent pricing. That said, one of my recent Details grades is of a coin that the only signs of cleaning I can find appear to be an obverse "wipe" going from the left field onto the device. I think I've gone crosseyed looking for more evidence of that coin being a problem. However, I will say the cheek of the liberty head (3CN) is a bit shiny so that might have clued the grader in that something was not quite right in the first place.

Mark, you infer a very interesting point and one I'm struggling with ever since I got the grades back and before the coin was back in my hands and I still struggle with on various slabs now. Are there coins that I break out and not let the Details graded slabs be a flashing warning sign to buyers and have an automatic negative affect/appeal and kill the pricing? Before I got this coin back in my hands, I thought that I had to break it out since how could the cleaning be that bad as for to miss it and for that dealer to pawn it off on me as market acceptable? Well, once it was back in hand, it became obvious that no knowledgeable collector (again, I insult myself here) should miss what's happening with the coin in a proper lighting and the pricing will be affected as such, so it would be pointless to break it out. I have no intention (and I know you didn't infer that I would) to "put one over" on someone I will be trying to sell these not-so-market-acceptable coins to, however, I also don't wish to blatantly destroy the pricing. I've lost a bit of sleep on this, trying to figure out, how do I move such coins in a fair manner (to me and the buyer)? If the coin is details for obvious reason, I'm currently intending to leave them in the holder. I do have an example or two, where the issue is not quite so problematic/obvious (and where one might argue about market acceptability) and I will likely break the coins out (again not to cheat anyone, because I would have every intention of letting the buyer examine any coin closely). As far as pricing goes, when a coin is in Details holder and not for "extreme" reasons (like whizzing, tooling out devices, major scratch, etc), what type of pricing might I expect? Would the coin automatically fall to 50% of the price it would be at the grade or maybe a full grade level (i.e. AU => EF) worth of pricing? There are cases I've seen where pricing barely moves between grade levels and pricing such a coin might be a bit more interesting.

Here is the Bust Half that I noted (paid $340). I did not get photos showing the flat sheen of the coin to show it's "luster". However, at least on the obverse on one side of the coin, you can see the obvious cleaning the coin got. The reverse shows its abuse fairly well in the slab picture. I can hear some of you saying, "How the heck did you miss that when you were at the dealer's table?" I really don't know. I think it was a combination of things including trusting this dealer's expertise, it looked like it was a lustrous AU, finding a coin that I needed for my type set, and just the general ANA show excitement. And now this is just one of the coins I absolutely wish to part with and wonder just how much I got soaked.

I will play around with lighting to see if I can get that hashwork of cleaning lines to show in photos, but I'm fairly certain that coin will never straight grade. One thing that I should have been aware of, but failed to notice when I purchased the coin is that the "luster" on the coin that I thought was due to it being a really nice AU, was really a flat sheen. As I'm sure you're aware, that flat sheen (unless you're looking at a PL or Proof) is indicative of the microscopic luster lines being seriously disturbed. It wasn't luster, but cleaned surfaces. And, as I noted above, I'm the unfortunate owner of many examples of this now (many of which acquired when I was a much more novice/gullible collector and decades ago). Sigh. My next concern is how to I sell these at whatever would be "fair value". I don't want them in my collection anymore but I also don't want to just give them away. In upcoming weeks I will try to get pictures of multiple examples and maybe create a different thread.

I will say that unfortunately I've let my guard down too many times which is evidenced by what I've now discovered. One coin in particular really ticks me off since I bought it from a dealer supposedly known to be a specialist in that series (it was a Capped Bust half), but, that dealer passed away within the last couple of years or so. I'm appalled that he would have pawned that off on me (at a Denver ANA show) and I'm equally appalled at myself for not being a tad more cynical at any coin coming across a dealers case.