Weak Strike as a Grade Reducer

[Broc Mitchell]

It has been a few days since I said I would post the weak strike 1884-O Dollar I mentioned in my "Guess the Grade' thread and I haven't yet. Rather than bump it I thought to start a new topic, I think it will be interesting to see where opinions are in the way of a weak strike coin and limitations on grade. The pictures aren't the best and I don't own the coin anymore, but I am sure its clear how clean this one is.

 

What I wonder is if a coin is a 65 in the way of marks and is weakly struck is it still a 65? If so then how or why should a much higher quality coin with a weak strike grade the same? I think strike is important but feel it shouldn't severely limit a grade. I would like to see it as a designation perhaps instead of a point reducer. What do you think?

 

 

 

-Broc

[TJ'S Coins]

Good question Broc (thumbs u

 

Strike is definitely a factor in a coins appearance and grade, but how much of a factor? A point or two? With Morgans in gem grades the cleaner the appearance - the higher the grade potential. Eye appeal, attractive toning, luster, bright original surfaces all factor in to the equation as well as strike.

 

For my own collecting, the higher the grade, the more that I expect a sharp strike. That is my preference, but one that is not universally shared as evidenced by any number of examples. I can think of SLQ's without full heads or detailed shield rivets, Mercury dimes that are not full split bands(FSB) or Roosevelts that are not full torch (FT), or Jefferson nickels that are not full step, etc., these can still be found in abundance in gem grades. Strike is part but not all of the equation in my understanding.

[warriorbassman-migration]

I wouldn't normally buy a coin with a weak strike and if I did it would be for a significant amount less than a coin with full details.

 

Fortunately strike does not coincide with grade. In other words a 45 Merc dime isn't necessarily going to have FB because its MS-65. Thats what makes the hunt so much better for some (including me).

 

I don't think in most cases a weakly struck specimen will get a lower grade than it is worthy of. IF it does it is probably more due to coincidence. I had a FE that I bought at 60 money because it was really flat struck in the tail feathers. I sent it in to NGC and received it back in a 63 holder. Not because NGC screwed up but because it really was a 63.

[James_OldeTowne]

I think this coin was already bumped down a grade. It appears to have the surface quality of an MS-66, but NGC assigned only an MS-65 due to the weak strike.

[bsshog40]

I think that a weak stike would hinder the coin a grade or two. Most people, I think, would rather have a good stike over a weak strike. Full details on a coin is more desirable for the appearance that it gives. It's good that TPG's can recognize weak strikes and still give a proper grading, but I still think that it does take away a grade or two not having the full stike. I think the Morgan in question here would be an easy MS66 if it had full details.JMO

[jtryka]

This is an idea that Q. David Bowers is very keen on if you've been reading his recent pieces in Coin World, the idea of finding properly graded coins with full details/strikes. This is most pronounced on SLQs where most FH coins are really 90-95% FH often with details missing on the shields.

 

Still, I think each series has their own quirks, like New Orleans Morgans that are known for their weak strikes. Even on Saints, the common date P-mints of the 1920s are almost always well struck, and often this makes it harder for these coins to grade high! I have a 1928 that is super sharp and yet only MS-64, yet my 1911-D and 1916-S are not as sharply struck yet graded MS-65. In many cases I believe that strike is a criteria in the final grade, but it's taken as a relative criteria. So a weak strike O-mint Morgan might grade higher than a sharply struck Philadelphia coin.

[nwcs]

That's my understanding as well, Jeff. When I took the grading class some years ago they talked about how the grade is based on the known characteristics of that type. So a coin known to be weakly struck in general won't be penalized for it. And if a strong strike is found for it then it'll be rewarded as exceptional.

[MAULEMALL]

Is it a weak strike or is it a case of typical O Mint Morgan dies

 

Improper die hardening maybe causing typical O mint flatness..

[physics-fan3.14]

I think this coin was already bumped down a grade. It appears to have the surface quality of an MS-66, but NGC assigned only an MS-65 due to the weak strike.

 

I agree. Some consideration has to be taken for the fact that this is an O mint, but it still doesn't change the fact that a weak strike limits the grade. You should never see a weakly struck coin above a 65 (66 at the highest), even if it is almost perfect in other ways. To me, as a collector of FBL franklins, the strike is very important.

[BillJones]

I think that the coin is a very weak MS-65. Although many New Orleans mint Morgan dollars often come poorly struck, 1884-O is not one of them. In fact 1884-O is one of the easiest O mint dollars to locate with a nice strike on both sides. For that reason I can't justify relaxing any standards here.

 

I think that this coin should be in an MS-64 holder. And yes a weak strike does lower the grade. I don't think that a poorly struck coin, regardless of the year, should grade higher than MS-64. In "the good old days" MS-65 was a premium grade that signified a well struck as well as a well preserved coin. With grade-flation, those standards are now used for MS-66 or better coins.

[jom]

This is an idea that Q. David Bowers is very keen on if you've been reading his recent pieces in Coin World, the idea of finding properly graded coins with full details/strikes. This is most pronounced on SLQs where most FH coins are really 90-95% FH often with details missing on the shields.

 

Ain't that the truth. I thought many FH coins were questionable full heads 10 years ago. Today it's terrible. I tend to avoid most FH graded coins due to the premium being far more than the coin is worth, IMO. Unfortunately, many really nice coins, albiet really non-FH, are stuck in FH holders at too high a price. Too bad.

 

As to how many points should a coin be cut in grade? I dunno. I don't really care. The bottom line for me the PRICE. If the coin is nice for the PRICE I'll buy it. Otherwise: PASS. Grading should be used for what it was originally meant to do: A method to communicate to a buyer what the coin looks like if they can't see the coin. If the market wants to pigeon whole coins into some category called "MS5" or whatever let them. I'll ignore it, valuate the coin myself and chose to buy or not buy.

 

My only run ins with the grading is when I have to SELL in this market....much pain occurs when one can't get a coin into a holder that "represents" () the value....

 

jom

[jesbroken]

IMHO, Morgan dollar coins that were normally weakly struck for whatever reason, should not have their grade reduced due to the strike, whereas coins that normally were known for a strong strike should be reduced in grade. That is my buying philosophy, anyway. I know many collector/buyers who will not buy an MS Morgan with such a weak strike as this coin shows-unless the price was ridiculously low to encourage resale. Obviously, this would not be feasible for coins without a verifiable history of strike conditions per year and mint locations.

[nwcs]

It also goes back to the age-old debate of market vs. technical grading. It's hard to find a grade that satisfies both needs in cases of weak strikes.

[IGWT]

Your question and some of the posts conflate two different grading philosophies: the concepts of "limiting" and "reducing" a coin's grade based on strike.

 

Some collectors (generally old school) believe that a weakly struck coin should not grade as high as or above 65. That is, a weak strike limits the coin's grade to 64 or 65 even if the coin is perfect in all other respects.

 

Other collectors believe that a coin's strike should be considered among others in reaching a net grade. That is, a weak strike reduces a coin's overall grade, but does not necessarily limit the grade to a predetermined level. Of course, the extent of the reduction depends on the preferences of the grader.

 

The trend has been to consider strike as a factor that reduces, but doesn't limit, a coins grade.

[MarkFeld]

Your question and some of the posts conflate two different grading philosophies: the concepts of "limiting" and "reducing" a coin's grade based on strike.

 

Some collectors (generally old school) believe that a weakly struck coin should not grade as high as or above 65. That is, a weak strike limits the coin's grade to 64 or 65 even if the coin is perfect in all other respects.

 

Other collectors believe that a coin's strike should be considered among others in reaching a net grade. That is, a weak strike reduces a coin's overall grade, but does not necessarily limit the grade to a predetermined level. Of course, the extent of the reduction depends on the preferences of the grader.

 

The trend has been to consider strike as a factor that reduces, but doesn't limit, a coins grade.

I think that was an excellent summation of the different philosophies pertaining to strike and grade, Lou. And to those who" believe that a weakly struck coin should not grade as high as or above 65", do you feel that a coin's grade should similarly be severely limited by subdued luster or unattractive toning, etc.?

[nwcs]

Or, reasonably enough to ask, if it left the mint that way and was preserved perfectly would it be MS-70? In other words, as struck.

[MarkFeld]

Or, reasonably enough to ask, if it left the mint that way and was preserved perfectly would it be MS-70? In other words, as struck.

Those who believe that strike can/should limit the grade of a coin to a maximum of MS65 (or insert your own number here), generally believe that, due to striking weakness, certain coins start out life at less than MS66. So there is an interesting and, no doubt, perpetual debate - should you grade each individual coin relative to a theoretically perfect example of that type, or do you make allowances for the fact that certain issues/dates/mints aren't as well made as others?

[stev32k]

There was a thread ATS about the sixth edition of the ANA grading standards saying that strike should not be a limiting factor when grading a coin. I don't have the sixth edition so can't confirm that information, but you can find the thread over there or maybe someone here can post an excerpt from the book.

 

P.S. Here's the thread:http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=598135&highlight_key=y&keyword1=6th%20edition

[bsshog40]

As stated in the 6th edition of the ANA grading standards.

 

"Under current grading standards, coins which exhibit significant weakness of strike cannot be graded MS65 or higher. To qualify as MS65 a coin must have a fairly sharp strike (but not necessarily a completely full strike).

 

That has changed. Today the leading commercial grading services routinely certify Buffalo nickels as MS66, or superb gem, even if the horn,shoulder, and head fur details are weak or missing. Similarly, a Standing Liberty Quarter can be graded MS66 even though the head might not be fully detailed and some of the rivets in the shield might be missing.

 

It would be a dis-service, if today, we stated that to be MS65 a coin had to have a fairly sharp strike, when in the real world marketplace this is not the case. Again, such situations admit of different opinions.

 

Today, the marketplace will accept the negative feature of an MS65 coin being weakly struck. This is because buyers of coins want the grade to reflect market value, not information as to sharpness, weakness, or the like."

[stev32k]

As stated in the 6th edition of the ANA grading standards.

 

"Under current grading standards, coins which exhibit significant weakness of strike cannot be graded MS65 or higher. To qualify as MS65 a coin must have a fairly sharp strike (but not necessarily a completely full strike).

 

That has changed. Today the leading commercial grading services routinely certify Buffalo nickels as MS66, or superb gem, even if the horn,shoulder, and head fur details are weak or missing. Similarly, a Standing Liberty Quarter can be graded MS66 even though the head might not be fully detailed and some of the rivets in the shield might be missing.

 

It would be a dis-service, if today, we stated that to be MS65 a coin had to have a fairly sharp strike, when in the real world marketplace this is not the case. Again, such situations admit of different opinions.

 

Today, the marketplace will accept the negative feature of an MS65 coin being weakly struck. This is because buyers of coins want the grade to reflect market value, not information as to sharpness, weakness, or the like."

 

That may well be the reason for the consortium coming into being. If two coins are completely free of hits, marks, lines, or other blemishes a fully struck specimen will bring more money. To say a weakly struck coin is just as valuable as a full and strongly struck one when all else is equal makes no sense at all.

[nwcs]

And that is one reason why I wish the grade for preservation was different from grade for value. I think having one grade which tries to harmonize the two elements is misleading. I think 2 scales with 2 grades (that look nothing alike -- one for preservation and the other for intangibles) would go a long way to helping the situation.

[TJ'S Coins]

And that is one reason why I wish the grade for preservation was different from grade for value. I think having one grade which tries to harmonize the two elements is misleading. I think 2 scales with 2 grades (that look nothing alike -- one for preservation and the other for intangibles) would go a long way to helping the situation.

 

Could you expand on this a little more? I believe this is the first time that I have heard this suggestion regarding a grade for preservation and one for intangibles. What type of grade system would be used for the intangibles?

 

Is this something like David Lawrence does with their number and star system or Steve Estes does with his Eye Appeal scale?

[rbrown4]

This is actually a very good and what could become a very interesting question in the marketplace perhaps to some degree for certain collectors. I believe Mike or someone above mentioned recent articles in Coin World by David Bowers regarding strike and other designations which sometimes do not match actual coin details. He used the SLQ as a very good example as another member pointed out above.

 

In one article David Bowers said something to the effect that if someone owes you $100.00 and gives you an envelope marked $100.00 inside, would you be satisfied if you opened it up and after counting found there was only $60.00? Probably not, but how true is it that many people buy a Standing LIberty Quarter Dollar designated as 'Full Head", when in reality it is no, but they keep it and are content.

I believe, also as David Bowers mentioned in the same article, that the CAC will be examining previously certified coins, looking at other aspects such as sharpness of strike, original color, etc. So what is going to happen when the CAC examines some of these SLQs that do not really have Full Head details and as well some that do?

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Your question and some of the posts conflate two different grading philosophies: the concepts of "limiting" and "reducing" a coin's grade based on strike.

 

Some collectors (generally old school) believe that a weakly struck coin should not grade as high as or above 65. That is, a weak strike limits the coin's grade to 64 or 65 even if the coin is perfect in all other respects.

 

Other collectors believe that a coin's strike should be considered among others in reaching a net grade. That is, a weak strike reduces a coin's overall grade, but does not necessarily limit the grade to a predetermined level. Of course, the extent of the reduction depends on the preferences of the grader.

 

The trend has been to consider strike as a factor that reduces, but doesn't limit, a coins grade.

I think that was an excellent summation of the different philosophies pertaining to strike and grade, Lou. And to those who" believe that a weakly struck coin should not grade as high as or above 65", do you feel that a coin's grade should similarly be severely limited by subdued luster or unattractive toning, etc.?

 

Yes. Call me old school (even though I'm only 22).

[Tradedollarnut]

I agree 100% with IGWT - nice summary. I've always been a proponent of strike being just one more factor in the net grade of a coin [just like wear, but lets not go there! ]

 

To my eyes, the Morgan in question is an MS67 net graded two points for the weak strike.

[rbrown4]

I think one thing is for sure, whether the strike affects the grade of a coin or not, it does affect it's value I believe. The effect, if any on grade would depend on the individual, company, etc. grading the coin. But in the end, I think it is safe to say that the strike of a coin definitely influences it's value.

 

Rey

[Broc Mitchell]

I have really enjoyed the path this discussion has taken. I certainly understand the thought process behind an overall net grade for a coin which is a factor of quantitative and qualitative attributes, quantitative essentially being marks on the coin (wear on circulated coins) and qualitative being luster, tone and strike quality. As such it would be impossible to ever see a solid concensus between even ten professional graders on any given coin, especially those which either have a below average or exceptional quality. This may be a reasonable explination for the degree of difference which can be seen when a single coin is submitted multiple times to acheive a certain grade. It may just be luck of the draw to finally get that one grader that puts as much weight in to a particular aspect of a coin as you do.

 

With the CAC I am curious if there is going to be a pass/fail criteria for coins they examine, or pass/fail/upgrade even. If this is the case what good does that do in the case were a coin has been net graded due to certain qualities, again there will be a difference of opinion when it comes to how heavily each attribute is weighted by the individual at hand. I think a truly revolutional service (even though as mentioned its been used by some people for quite some time) is a 'scientifically verifiable' system for rating each aspect of a particular series of coin. In this case, for uncirculated coins, the sheldon grade could be purely for how many marks the coin has. Then there could be a scale of 1-10 for strike and luster then a designation and number for different types of toning. The benefit for scientific analysis of these features would be that there is no guess work involved. It can be determined what is the strongest strike for a series or sub type, the weakest strike and all coins will fall between 1-10, same for luster or mirror fields, full heads, hands, clasp or what have you for that series. If a certain date/mint is frequently but not always weakly struck the pop report will reflect it. If there is a significant amount of monster bag toned coins from a certain year, it will be reflected. With the digital age advanced reports could be populated by the grader so super special coins can be properly identified beyond the numeric system, like a 100% monochrome red monster with textile patterning for example.

 

I guess at this point grading techniques and technology fall far behind where they should through the past 20+ years. Its essentially still the same (sans changes in market grading)! My guess is that a lot of people are scared of technology and coin grading. If more advanced and scientific techniques came to be previously problem free coins could be revealed to be lesser quality or problem coins compared to those which are not, but cost the same money at one point. Imagine if all coins above a certain dollar amount were inspected with ultra sound, x-ray or some other advanced technique. How many superbly plugged, tooled or otherwise altered/fixed coins would be exposed? If they did advanced spectro-analysis of elements found on toned coins how easy would it be to lock down chemical signatures of artifically toned coins? etc. etc.

 

This is a bit of a ramble but I am sure it will make sense!

 

-Broc

[nwcs]

And that is one reason why I wish the grade for preservation was different from grade for value. I think having one grade which tries to harmonize the two elements is misleading. I think 2 scales with 2 grades (that look nothing alike -- one for preservation and the other for intangibles) would go a long way to helping the situation.

 

Could you expand on this a little more? I believe this is the first time that I have heard this suggestion regarding a grade for preservation and one for intangibles. What type of grade system would be used for the intangibles?

 

Is this something like David Lawrence does with their number and star system or Steve Estes does with his Eye Appeal scale?

I haven't really developed the thought too far in my head but the two scales should be totally different. I think the scale for preservation would concern the degree of deterioration from a theoretical as-struck coin. So it could be expressed in terms of degree.

 

The intangibles, which are somewhat arbitrary, could be done in a simpler fashion like the DLRC system. I'd go a bit simpler, though, and use the old kindergarten grades: Excellent, Good, Satisfatory, Fair, Unsatisfactory.

 

I just think one grade can't express two things simultaneously.