How much does strike matter to you?

[Kurtdog]

While I understand why some collectors covet strike above all else, I am not a member of that crowd for one simple reason. Strike is evaluated on a curve! The quality of strike changes by date/mm. The easiest example to provide is the difference in strike between "S" mint and "O" mint common date Morgan Dollars. Consider that these two coins are both graded MS66.

 

 

Nobody will dispute that the 1881-S has a much better strike than the 1884-O, but IMO, both of these coins exhibit a strike that is average for their respective date/mm.

 

From PCGS's OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION, this is the very first passage about strike as an element of grading.

 

Strike is one of the most important elements of higher-grade coins. In grades of MS-65 and PR-65 and higher, the coin must be well struck. If a coin has nearly perfect surfaces but is not well struck, PCGS will assign a grade of no higher than MS-64.

 

Anyone who reads that would logically conclude that an incomplete strike would be a grade limiting factor. But anyone can plainly see that the photo of the 1884-O Morgan above clearly contradicts that statement. Now I know the coin shown above is in an NGC holder, but I promise there are coins exactly like that one residing in premium gem PCGS holders as well. When the TPG's talk about a coin being well struck, it is based upon the quality of the strike in relation to the typical strike produced for that date/mm. In other words, by the standards of the New Orleans mint for Morgan Dollars in 1884, that coin is well struck. If the 1881-S were to have that same strike, it would be limited to a grade of MS64, despite the fact that it had premium gem surfaces.

 

I firmly believe that this practice of rating strike relative to date/mm diminishes the overall significance of strike as an element of grading. Having said that, I truly admire and believe that the most advanced collectors are those that actually take the time to learn about the strike characteristics for each date/mm of their series and seek out an above average struck example for every coin in their collection.

 

To illustrate my point further, take a look at the two photos below.

 

 

Now tell me which one has the better strike? and why?

IMHO you just illustrated why strike isn't and never has been a part of the technical grade. That's the rationale. Maybe I can loosen you up, some, into accepting it as a part of the market grade. Simply give that 1884-O the strike on that 1881-S. Do you see how the market values that coin more, now?

 

Bottom-line, I think NGC showed their knowledge of these Mints when they assigned these grades, and, as such, I'm impressed, anyway.

[James_OldeTowne]

Strike is one of the most important elements of higher-grade coins. In grades of MS-65 and PR-65 and higher, the coin must be well struck. If a coin has nearly perfect surfaces but is not well struck, PCGS will assign a grade of no higher than MS-64.

Two points should be made. First of all, "well struck" is relative. A "well struck" 1801 half-dollar, for example, looks significantly weaker than a "well struck" 1806 half-dollar.

 

Also, unfortunately, PCGS strays often enough from the standard which you have quoted.

[coinman_23885]

 

IMHO you just illustrated why strike isn't and never has been a part of the technical grade. That's the rationale. Maybe I can loosen you up, some, into accepting it as a part of the market grade.

 

But NGC/PCGS are assessing market grade not the technical grade per se , and third party grading services have admitted to this (see, e.g., the PCGS page on eye appeal which considers factors such as toning in the assigned grade). This says nothing about your incorrect assertion that technical grading does not consider the strike of the coin. It does and always has.

[jom]

I'm sure there are many good arguments about how much strike should affect the grade...and I'm sure there are all well thought out. The only objection I have is how a number of series makes certain strike attributes more important than the overall strike such as FB or FT or FH or whatever. The problem is not so much what they stamp on a slab label but the, IMO, phony premium that goes along with the hype.

 

I personally do NOT look at strike and marks as much as I do luster and color. I also don't get hemmed in with the grade. I just look for eye appeal. So if the strike or marks are such that it takes away significantly from the eye appeal I tend to not worry about it. In terms of marks I have more objection to hairlines (possibly from cleaning) than I do bag-marks.

 

However, if the luster and color aren't to my liking I'll reject regardless of how good the strike is or clean the surface is. That's just me.

 

Speaking of trying to grade with a strike problem how do you grade something like this?:

 

 

The coin is a GEM on the obverse but the reverse (as typical for the date: 26-D) is very weak. What is the though process in trying to grade this?

 

jom

[physics-fan3.14]

Jom, the marks and luster and eye appeal are magnificent on that coin - but the abysmal strike brings the grade way down in my book. I wouldn't be able to honestly grade that much higher than 63.

[Walkerfan]

Jom, the marks and luster and eye appeal are magnificent on that coin - but the abysmal strike brings the grade way down in my book. I wouldn't be able to honestly grade that much higher than 63.

 

I think Physics nailed it.

 

Great color, but very flat reverse (even for that issue).

 

I, too, wouldn't go any higher than MS 63.

 

Still a WONDERFUL coin that ANYONE would be proud to own. IMHO.

[lehigh96]

IMHO you just illustrated why strike isn't and never has been a part of the technical grade. That's the rationale. Maybe I can loosen you up, some, into accepting it as a part of the market grade. Simply give that 1884-O the strike on that 1881-S. Do you see how the market values that coin more, now?

 

I think I gave you the wrong impression. I know that strike is a part of market grading and does affect the overall grade, but like the TPG's, I think it is the least important aspect of grading.

 

Bottom-line, I think NGC showed their knowledge of these Mints when they assigned these grades, and, as such, I'm impressed, anyway.

 

I agree 100%

[lehigh96]

Strike is one of the most important elements of higher-grade coins. In grades of MS-65 and PR-65 and higher, the coin must be well struck. If a coin has nearly perfect surfaces but is not well struck, PCGS will assign a grade of no higher than MS-64.

Two points should be made. First of all, "well struck" is relative. A "well struck" 1801 half-dollar, for example, looks significantly weaker than a "well struck" 1806 half-dollar.

 

Also, unfortunately, PCGS strays often enough from the standard which you have quoted.

 

Did you miss this sentence when you read my post?

 

When the TPG's talk about a coin being well struck, it is based upon the quality of the strike in relation to the typical strike produced for that date/mm.

[lehigh96]

I'm sure there are many good arguments about how much strike should affect the grade...and I'm sure there are all well thought out. The only objection I have is how a number of series makes certain strike attributes more important than the overall strike such as FB or FT or FH or whatever. The problem is not so much what they stamp on a slab label but the, IMO, phony premium that goes along with the hype.

 

I personally do NOT look at strike and marks as much as I do luster and color. I also don't get hemmed in with the grade. I just look for eye appeal. So if the strike or marks are such that it takes away significantly from the eye appeal I tend to not worry about it. In terms of marks I have more objection to hairlines (possibly from cleaning) than I do bag-marks.

 

However, if the luster and color aren't to my liking I'll reject regardless of how good the strike is or clean the surface is. That's just me.

 

Speaking of trying to grade with a strike problem how do you grade something like this?:

 

 

The coin is a GEM on the obverse but the reverse (as typical for the date: 26-D) is very weak. What is the though process in trying to grade this?

 

jom

 

WOW, our collecting styles are eerily similar.

 

With regards to the 26-D Buffalo, this date/mm is known for having a weak strike which certainly needs to be taken into consideration when grading the coin. However, the strike on the coin in question has got to be at the bottom of the barrel. The problem is that the other elements of grading appear to be superb. The surfaces are gem, possibly premium gem. The luster appears full and the eye appeal is off the charts.

 

While my initial reaction to the reverse strike was to agree with Jason and grade the coin MS63, other than the strike, the coin is gem in every single way. Therefore, the strike should limit the grade from being gem but I would have to allow it a grade of MS64*.

 

Ya know what really bothers me about that coin? The obverse is not nearly as poorly struck as the reverse and when viewed simultaneously, they look strange. Just to show that I will ignore a truly weak strike if the eye appeal is good, take a look at my 1951-D registry nickel.

 

 

I dare you to show me a premium gem struck worse than that!

[lehigh96]

 

To illustrate my point further, take a look at the two photos below.

 

 

Now tell me which one has the better strike? and why?

 

Both have relatively sharp strikes. With regards to the obverse, I see more details on Mr. Jefferson's jaw line. The reverses of the coins are very interesting. The top, full step example, has less detail in the foyer/doors of Monticello. The bottom, non-full step coin, has more detail in the foyer/doors of Monticello, but weaker steps. I would call it a statistical tie, but in fairness, I don't know the series as well as you do and the coins may receive a special "bonus" because the date may usually be weakly struck.

 

EDITED TO ADD: I didn't even pay attention to the dates. The 1954-s does look sharply struck for the date. It's gorgeous.

 

I don't think anyone else is going to respond so I will provide the answer. All of the coins from 1940 had good strikes. The 1940-S shown while a 6FS coin is an LDS coin what I would call an average strike for the date/mm. The 1954-S was voted the worst strike of the entire series by the PAK FSNC. The strike you see on the 1954-S shown is probably one of the best strikes you will ever see on a 54-S.

 

So which coin is better struck? In relation to each other, the 1940-S. In relation to the typical strike for their respective date/mm, without a doubt, the 1954-S.

 

It becomes silly at some point and I just can't give strike my vote. In political terms, strike is a flip flopper.

[jom]

The 1954-S was voted the worst strike of the entire series by the PAK FSNC. The strike you see on the 1954-S shown is probably one of the best strikes you will ever see on a 54-S.

 

So which coin is better struck? In relation to each other, the 1940-S. In relation to the typical strike for their respective date/mm, without a doubt, the 1954-S.

 

I actually forgot to respond to this earlier when I posted. I knew that about the 54-S Jefferson (I think 55-S is bad as well). I thought both coins had roughly equal strikes except for the steps from what I could see. However, I liked the 54-S for it's color...but that's just me again.

 

I remember about 10 years ago there was a 54-S in 63FS on eBay that went for several thousand dollars (for the FS designation I guess). I remember seeing that and thinking even IF I was a Jeff collector I never would have been interested. It was buttugly as the coin had no appeal at all to me...but for the strike hunter it may have been Nirvana for all I knew. Yet again...that's just me.

 

The Buffalo nickel I showed above was accurately graded (IMO) by NGC at MS63 "STAR". So if you average everyone's thoughts in this thread you all hit it just about right or close enough.

 

The problem is that I'm not certain the TPG's always come up with the same standard across the board...but that Buff does present a problem with the wide disparity in grading elements. Another I can think of is, say, a 1881-S Morgan with BLAST luster and pretty color that got bag-marks on it's face. That is another difficult one to grade.

 

jom

[Kurtdog]

IMHO you just illustrated why strike isn't and never has been a part of the technical grade. That's the rationale. Maybe I can loosen you up, some, into accepting it as a part of the market grade. Simply give that 1884-O the strike on that 1881-S. Do you see how the market values that coin more, now?

I think I gave you the wrong impression. I know that strike is a part of market grading and does affect the overall grade, but like the TPG's, I think it is the least important aspect of grading.

You know, in retrospect, I kind of knew that. I wasn't persuading you of anything. Philosophically, you were already there. Let the record reflect on this one, my bad.

 

[TheCoinGeezer]

Strike is an extremely important factor in my selection of a coin.

Surface condition even more so.

[crypto79-migration]

I like a strong strike as much as anyone but I can also appreciate a weakly struck coin as well, I see it a trait/quirk of older manufacturing processes. What I don't understand is people paying top dollar for strike designations on holders that may or may not have anything to do with the strike quality.