Satin vs glossy

[TPring]

In picking through several rolls of new 2017D LCs, I have noticed that while most are satin, a number of them are glossy [and better looking, too].

Is there any reason to believe that the glossy are worth holding onto for faster appreciation or, is this normal?


Thanks

[GrumpyEd]

Some modern years the satin was intentional for mint sets (and those years seem to have both in the ones for normal circulation).
Those years are 2005 to 2009. I think the satin ones were more available in super high grades so for those years the non satin sell for higher $ in high grades.

After that, I still see what you mentioned that some are more toward being prooflike and some are more satin and I'm not sure how it effects value. I notice that on the prooflike ones the rinse spots show easier and it's tough to find one free of spots and they seem less stable and tone strange or spot faster than satins.

It gives me a question for the guys that are really sharp about die states/stages. My question is on the modern ones like 2017 do all the dies start out satin or is it random? Would satins be more likely to be early strikes?

[VAB2013]

Thank you Ed for helping on this! I thought the term "satin" finish only applied to special mint sets? But I have seen the proof like "mirror" finish on 2017's and other new Shield cents, and also the finish that is more "satin" like. I wonder if fresh dies produce the "mirror" finish and older dies produce the "satin" looking finish? You are right, the mirror finish does show every imperfection!

[GrumpyEd]

I thought the term "satin" finish only applied to special mint sets? But I have seen the proof like "mirror" finish on 2017's and other new Shield cents, and also the finish that is more "satin" like. I wonder if fresh dies produce the "mirror" finish and older dies produce the "satin" looking finish? You are right, the mirror finish does show every imperfection!

I'm not sure, that is why I asked if anyone knew if they start out satin or if it's random.


The site below said they sandblasted the blanks to do it but that seems odd, I thought if anything they did something to the dies. (that's why I asked if satins are more likely EDS if it was something about the die finish that wears off in use) I only know the mint sets from those years were satin and the production ones seemed to be both. And the modern ones like 2017 seem to be randomly both.



Special mint sets SMS were 1965-66-67 (and some rare pieces from 64).

Satin mint sets are different, I think ALL mint sets from 2005-2009 were satin mint sets.

Check out:

http://mintsetguide.com/2005-mint-set/

"2005 When sales began on May 31, the US Mint indicated that it was the first time in history that the set had a satin finish. The purpose of the change was to adopt a consisted style across the various uncirculated products and further differentiate the coins from those included in numismatic bags and rolls or issued for circulation. The satin finish is created by sandblasting blanks prior to striking, which results in coins with frosted, less reflective surfaces. For this year especially, the satin finish coins were found more frequently in high grades. Many coins received numerical grades of MS68 or MS69 from the major grading services, which began to differentiate these coins from circulation strikes, which were more typically encountered in lower grades. Collectors of specific series also had to make the decision of whether they would update their sets with both the business strike version and satin finish version of each coin."



"2010 After several years of using a special satin finish, a brilliant finish was reintroduced."

[GrumpyEd]

Oh, just adding:

I know the real question in the thread is more about the 2017s looking brilliant or satin.

The reason I mention the intentional satin finish ones as being similar is that.... As stated those years the satin ones had lower values in higher grades like MS69 because those satin mint sets were full of high grades but the normal circulation brilliant ones were harder to get in high grades.

They said the mint set coin blanks were sandblasted (but I wonder if it was really the blanks or the dies)...

In the end, you could find satin or brilliant in circulation, bricks seemed mixed (like today).

Then to top it off, I knew people that hunted for a normal bus strike (non mint set coin) to get graded since they were valued higher. And sort of like a proof vs a bus strike the TPGs were putting it on the slabs, if you sent a satin from a mint set they labeled it satin and it had lower value because of the label. But when the guys I knew sent the high grade bus strikes in hoping for a high grade and high value (because they were not mint sets coins) the TPGs often put satin on the label anyway if it looked satin.

Seems odd because if there was truly a manufacturing change that made them satin (that was done for mint sets) and the TPGs were differentiating then something was going wrong, either the TPGs couldn't always tell one from the other or the mint was randomly doing both in the bus strikes. Or the mint was re-using those dies but that didn't fit because the satins in bus strikes were not rare, they were about 50-50 like we see today.

Now that was hard to explain LOL

[GrumpyEd]

Back to the original post.

So in those years 2005-2009 the TPGs did label cents one or the other and it did effect the value.

Then after that, they do not differentiate them so according to price guides it does not change the value or there is only one type.

But, I clearly see 2 different types about as different as the ones they would have labeled differently from 2005 to 2009.

And another silly thought, do we see most trails on brilliant coins?

[TPring]

Interesting information, did not think there would be so much thought [and elbow grease] invested in such a small nuance -- Thanks.

In looking at the coins laid out on my table, the finish is not really noticeable until I get out the ol' B&L 5X magnifier.

Maybe the 'satin' term is reserved for mint and proof. Not sure if my terminology is correct -- Possibly the term matte is used more.


On a side note, I recently purchased a proof '36 LC listed as satin [by grading firm]: Had never heard/read anything about it until then [Frosted was the only special term I was familiar with].

[VAB2013]

Ed, thank you so much for this information! So, I'm thinking we may not be able to know why our modern Shield cents sometimes have a mirror finish and some have a satin or matte. Based on your info about circulated brilliant cents faring better than the satin ones, I guess we can say that would apply to modern cents as well.

Trail dies... personally I have found more trail lines on brilliant modern cents than those with a more matte finish, maybe because the clear field makes them easier to see. But that seems to be different prior to the Shield era because the stronger ones like the 1994P-1DER-023 is highly visible on a heavily circulated coin where finish is no longer an issue. Although, it appears the trail lines weaken as the die ages on both Shield and Memorial cents.

[GrumpyEd]

Based on your info about circulated brilliant cents faring better than the satin ones,

Viv, it's 2005-2009 bus strikes (not circulated or uncirculated) that get more $, compared with satins, because they assume the satins are from satin mint sets even if they were really satin bus strikes.

[VAB2013]

Viv, it's 2005-2009 bus strikes (not circulated or uncirculated) that get more $, compared with satins, because they assume the satins are from satin mint sets even if they were really satin bus strikes.

Thank you, trying to retain all of this! Appreciate the coaching!