GoldFinger1969

We call these coins "weakly struck" or "weak strikes"....but in reality....they appear to be poorly-basined dies, which is a longer phrase, more cumbersome, though it might be more accurate. Before these threads and reading FMTM, I thought weak strike literally meant that the die was poorly designed or the mechanical press was off. The actual strike isn't the problem -- it's the die.

I used to call on them when I was on the sell-side. Cheap SOBs...took our research, and never paid us. Or me, at least.

Wow, only a few thousand. Not sure how long other large silver coins saw their dies last or other large gold coins but that does seem very low. Interesting, didn't know that or forgot it from my 1st reading of FMTM. We didn't have fine measuring tools back then, I could see how this could be a wide discrepancy affecting strike. Philly made all the dies, but then if the basining was off, you either had a great die (SanFran) or crappy one (NO). Again...if the die is simply created wrongly and the strike stinks, the coin -- even if as good as it can be coming off the press -- would NOT get an MS-70 rating if otherwise perfect, because the defect (basining or whatever) prevented the finished coin from looking as good as others, right ? Thanks Power ....and to everyone else, too. I really learned alot in this thread. This is the NGC Forums at their finest.

Yeah, aren't security chips now standard on some of the pricier valuations of coins or tiered grading services ? I would have thought CACG would have had that from Day 1. Maybe nobody really wants it in their holders ?

Hey....you're not the guy who asked for and received a LOWER grade for a 1927-D Saint so it could get a CAC sticker, are you ?

In this case....with 5 grade points between them...and the curls and feathers so noticeable....it's a good illustration of the striking issue, regardless of whether or not we quibble with the grade each coin got from different TPGs. But I do see your point.

Can definitely see the difference in the curls above the ear and the breast feathers on the eagle. Two of the best/easiest "tells" on coins that I can recall.

Wow...CACG would call a scratch a Details coin ? That's harsh.

If the surface is soft (i.e., gold) and it comes out of a velvet pouch or something "rougher"....maybe the coin's surface could look "cleaned" ?

Will do ...it's at home, and I'm making the rounds with F&F.

They struck so many it would have been very expensive and added to the costs to replace them at normal intervals I guess.

I would agree with this, CB. Have any of you checked out this price, sticker, and grading matrix by CAC ? Not sure if they always had this sans the grading component but it's pretty useful. Though I question the prices at certain points -- like that for a 1908 No Motto Saint-Gaudens MS-67...$16,200 for the 27 stickered (none GRADED that high by CACG). MS-67's can be had for ~ 5,500 (NGC) and ~ $6,500 (PCGS) and if the MS-68's are ~ $25,000 that price for the 67 CACG or sticker seems to be implying very good chance of an upgrade to 68 which the passage of time would seem to say otherwise.

Is it tamper-resistant and as protective as the PCGS and NGC holders ?

Finishing up the 4th (!) Edition of David Bowers Whitman Red Book on Morgans....I'm struck (figuratively not literally !! ) by the constant repetition of "weak strike...lack of hair detail above Liberty's ear....soft breast feathers on eagle." This is pretty much a constant with all the Morgan's from 1878 thru 1904. Not sure about 1921 when the series resumed. Was this an issue of simply not having the tools to make quality dies during this time period ? An issue of lack of metallurgy skills ? Or was it just particular to the folks who made the Morgan dies ? I'll assume it had nothing to do with the striking equipment based on RWB's past statements on that equipment. It's been a while since I read the Double Eagle Red Book book which covers the Liberty Head DEs, but maybe similar problems cropped up there as they overlapped on the time period. I know it wasn't present on all the years/mintmarks of the Saint series which began in 1907. Any Morgan experts familiar with the "weak strike" issue ? Common to all coins before the early-1900's, large coins only, or just Morgan's ?

All coins raw ? Any particularly notable coins in popularly-collected series: Saints, Liberty Head DEs, Morgan's, Franklin Halfs, or Lincolns ?

I plugged that stock and other dividend-paying bank stocks a few months ago on some other forums. Sometimes a high dividend can signify trouble but in TFC's case the stock price got cut in half and a 4% yield became 8%. I'd love to have a Financial Markets or Stock Market Thread where I can post thoughts and actual sell-side research. But we can't attach PDFs here even though I've requested it over the years. Maybe if some of you also bang the doors.

Maybe the submitter mishandled it ? Or it could have been a gross error on the part of the TPG, though I have never heard of this happening before....brand new coin from the Mint being considered UNC DETAILS.

They spend less than 30 seconds looking at virtually all coins, except maybe high-end ones or trophy coins. Doubt there would be much to communicate.

Not sure what is being changed....they don't levy sales taxes now on gold/silver but this new bill would eliminate SALES tax or CAPITAL GAINS tax on the SALE of gold/silver ?

I made a mistake, sorry.....Coin #3 apparently is NOT a 1908 Wells Fargo NM. It is one of the 1908's that pre-dates the Wells Fargo Hoard. Aside from the fact that the WF Hoard generally are generally more appealing and better struck than non-WF even for the same grade...people probably also pay a premium for the WF moniker...ergo, that may explain why this coin didn't sell at this price and the non-WF pedigree was a slight headwind.

There are so many morrons out there they may have been told stuff like..... "The TPGs deliberately give them low grades or say they've been altered...then they buy them on the cheap....I know people who sold a coin for $15 and the TPGs or a dealer sold it for $25,000...don't let them rip you off...the folks messaging you are looking to get the coins on the cheap...that Morgan Dollar you have that Grandpa sandpapered clean, don't let them lie and tell you it's not worth hundreds of dollars." I see the same thing in my field, money management, all the time but with folks wanting to act on "hot tips" or seduced by 12% "safe yields" and stuff like that. Or gold investments where you buy bullion, lend it out, do some other stuff, and make 20% a year while maintaining coin ownership. There's more information today than ever before....but the decision-making is stupider than ever. I think that is what Bill Ackman vs. Harvard is all about.

Many probably have coins from years or decades ago...they Google a few things about the coin and think it's worth 3-10x the FMV. Something like that.

I have to check, but I do NOT believe any of the 1908 NM WF Saints graded 68 or 69 has a CAC sticker. Not sure about the 67's. Does the CAC website have a listing of all the grades for particular coins that got the CAC bean ?

LiLPit....you didn't tell us how long you have been collecting Morgans or coins in general....have you bought raw or certified in the past....are you looking to focus in on 1 or 2 coin series ? Lots of resources for whatever your intentions are here at the NGC Forums.

I think $1,000 for 2 idential coins of this type is too steep. Unless you know one coin is a "B" or "A" type (and maybe a CAC, but don't assume it) and the other is your classic "C" overgrade where there's a good chance it should be a 66 and not a 67......$1,000 is too high, IMO, for a coin like this which is very common (maybe more justifiable in the same price range if the coin is scarcer). I think $500 is the sweet spot for coins in the $5,000 range...or about 10%.