Request for consistency - Lustreless, lusterless

[Ozzyjack]

Hi Alan,

I believe Lustre and Luster are considered to be the same word with legitimate different spelling. Both are classified as common.

Therefore, I assume Lustreless (common) and Lusterless (rare) are considered to be the same word.

I am indifferent about whether they are classified common or rare, but I believe they should be classified the same.

It is not a priority but could you have a look at this when time permits, please?.
,

[Alan W]

I agree the two words should be treated the same.

My initial thought was that the word - with either spelling - is rarely used, and some players might not have noticed its existence as a word. That does seem to be the case, although lustreless is occasionally used in US publications. And it's occasionally used in a figurative sense, as in this from the Telegraph (UK) in 2016:

This was the day after England had drawn 1-1 in a lustreless performance against the Republic of Ireland in their first match of Italia '90.

However, for every use of lustreless in this sense there are about a thousand uses of lacklustre.

In future lustreless will be classed as rare, like lusterless.