Grading when there is no lustre

Theese days adding coins to my swap list I had a little moment of confusion when thinking a grade for the 2 examples below:



Yoy can see that none of them has its original lustre or shiny aspect but most of the details of the eagles, crowns, etc., are visible 99%.

In cases like theese, what grade do you pick? Always VF or what do you do?

Regards

Lustre doesn't affect grading, though you might want to add "dark" or "brown" or something like that.

I say this for the Poor to UNC scale. I suppose it's different when you use the MS60 to 70 scale. After all, a coin can be toned and still be uncirculated, but a toned coin is not "mint state" any longer. (I don't know if that's one of the arguments to distinguish MS from UNC.)

For my own records, based on the picture, the dark coin would be "XF45" (or maybe "AU50"?). Had it been UNC, I would have written "UNC brown".

For my copper/bronze coins, I write, for example, "AU45" followed by a note: "70% lustre".

Agreed. Luster is only a major determining factor in very high grades MS 60 and above while having absolutely no grading impact in grades below that threshold.
The coin on the left is VF while the coin on the right is AU50 or so. Just look at the difference in the details of the feathers for instance. Quite a difference regardless of color or luster.

Very well stated by @harryg.
You need to start by finding an MS sample of the coin for comparison.
For the coin on the left, you could use the Numista reference photos and see that your eagle has lost some details on the feathers:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6189.html

There can be other reasons for the loss of detail (worn dies, etc) that would affect the grade differently, but for modern coins like these, wear is the best guess.

That you for your inputs mates.

I always thought that lustre was important to reach certain grades due to the explanations in our How to grade coins guide; you can see that its pointed that since XF at least something of the lustre must be present to reach XF, AU or UNC. This is what leaded me to this question but is nice to know that lustre can be "avoid".

I guess that it would be also a good idea to have personal notes like the one Camerinvs pointed like "UNC brown" or "UNC no lustre", something like that.

Thanks for your help

Verweis : "Camerinvs"​​I say this for the Poor to UNC scale. I suppose it's different when you use the MS60 to 70 scale.

​MS is just another name of UNC. According to Krause SCWC, even AU often has half or more of the original mint luster. And for all subdivisions of UNC - from MS60 to MS70 - the mint luster is a must. So if there is no mint luster, I always grade a coin XF, or maximum XF-AU.

Verweis : "ciscoins"​

Verweis : "Camerinvs"​​I say this for the Poor to UNC scale. I suppose it's different when you use the MS60 to 70 scale.
​
​

​​MS is just another name of UNC. According to Krause SCWC, even AU often has half or more of the original mint luster. And for all subdivisions of UNC - from MS60 to MS70 - the mint luster is a must. So if there is no mint luster, I always grade a coin XF, or maximum XF-AU.

​Hello,

I don't think it's how it works. Why would we need the grade "BU" if "UNC" means that the coin has, by definition, its original lustre?

A good description is at Heritage Auctions (better than the Numista "Numisdoc" which confuses things).

Verweis : "Camerinvs"​Why would we need the grade "BU" if "UNC" means that the coin has, by definition, its original lustre?
​

​In my opinion, BU is not a grade at all. It is another quality of minting, used for coins that are made only for collectors (e.g. in mint sets).