Question About 'Luster'

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't luster objective? I have always thought of the description of "luster" as a determinable fact i.e. gradable, whereas "eye appeal" was much more opinion based. This fits with Snooba's definition, but just wanted to see what others may think! I feel that I often time get the luster and eye appeal aspect of a coin's grade confused.

If you have an uncirculated coin or a very bright coin out of your pocket change, it will be easier to describe luster to you. When you tilt the coin in the light, you will see how there is a band of light that appears to go around the coin. This is the luster. It is because of that movement when tilted under a light that it is often called cartwheel luster.

As a side note, proof strikes do not have this luster as they are struck differently. This is a good way to tell a proof from a business strike if the fields are mirrored or devices frosted. Be careful not to confuse it with a polished coin, though.

I'm moving this to the Main Forum for better exposure.

Luster is the transfer of micoscopic (Flow-Lines) to the coin from the die. When enough coins are struck from new dies their movement across those dies micoscopically etches the dies. Since it's etched into the die it's recessed and what is recessed on the dies shows up on the coin as raised--although it's micoscopic. These lines reflect light. As they get worn down they reflect less and less. Think of a new flow line as this: ^ The wear begins at the point and the ^ becomes more blunt with more wear until it's so blunt it has a "washed-out" look to it. This, BTW is what happens when coins are over dipped or dipped too many times. The chemicals burn down the flow lines and once they are gone that's it, the show is over.

I wonder what will happen when people figure out the difference between a "first-strike" mirror look and not so "first-strike" luster look.