When is a strike too weak?

[RGT]

Early in my collecting days I didn't think too much about strike. That's probably because the only coins I could afford were well circulated and I never noticed the difference. Over the years I've come to be quite a bit more picky about strike and will often pass on otherwise nice coins because the strike is just not all I want it to be, even on typically weak coins.

 

I understand that there is still a market for weakly struck coins, but at what point should the strike start to affect the price? What got me thinking about this was a particular Flying Eagle I found in Heritage's Exclusively Internet Auction that closes tonight.

 

AU55 Flying Eagle

 

Where is the eagles face? How can he fly with no tail feathers? And the reverse is just as bad.

 

Now I personally wouldn't pay a VF price for this coin, though I'm sure it has very little actual wear. Yet someone doesn't seem to mind the strike and it has been bid up to what I would call an average price for an AU Flying Eagle.

 

So, when is a strike too weak for you?

[kryptonitecomics]

Heck even part of the date is missing. I am not that picky about the strike, but I agree that I wouldn't pay much for this example.

[Hoot]

The coin looks like it was struck from grease filled dies. Those areas of the eagle that you mentioned are terrible.

 

Strike has always been the #1 criterion for me. I look at strike first and all other attributes of the coin in the context of the strike of the coin. For example, I love nicely toned coins, but if the strike is bad, I will likely pass on owning the piece.

 

I believe that strike shows up prominently for many circulated pieces, down to the grades of VF. For example, in the buffalo nickel series, the weak strikes of the branch Mints of 1914-29, and especially 1918-25, show up quite readily down through the VF grades. A weak strike really distracts from the quality of the appearance of the coin.

 

Lustre plays a close second for me to strike in uncirculated coins.

 

Hoot

[cladking]

Strike is critical to my estimation of the value of a coin. It's always surprised me that most collectors value an MS-60 with weak details more than a VF with more detail than the MS-60. Indeed with clad coinage there are MS-60's which don't have the detail of some VG's!! When I look for a coin the most important thing is always whether I already have it in a collection or not. The second thing is whether or not the coin is attractive. Was it struck evenly by new dies? Was it well centered and were the dies well hubbed? It is only then that the amount of wear or the marking or post strike damage are gauged.

[TomB]

A nice strike is not the most important thing to me, but a really mushy coin isn't as desireable.

 

I can believe that that Flyer is AU, however, I wouldn't pay AU money for it, either. I would, however, find it interesting to own because of the way the eagle disappears.

[Wihlborg]

A full strike is an important attribute to me. I know that they say luster is king, and I agree that luster plays a big role in the eye appeal of a coin, but to me strike and luster go hand in hand toward the ‘desirably’ of a coin. In general, one without the other equals a lesser coin IMO.

 

Of course we all know that almost all decisions to buy a coin or not are a matter of tradeoffs. Do I buy the coin with an excellent strike and just good luster or the coin with excellent luster, but an average strike? Maybe the coin that has both an excellent strike and luster, but has more marks. And then there are those issues such as the branch mint buffalo nickels from the teens and twenties where a full strike is just about imposable to find.

 

I own a MS-64 1917d buff with a strike that I feel is pretty good for that issue, but I would never buy 1938d buff with the same strike!

 

It is the rare coin indeed were all of its attributes are at the same level of perfection, so it is important to know what the attributes of the coins you are interested in ‘normally’ look like so you will know it when you finally see something special for that issue.

 

John

[jom]

When is a strike too weak?

 

A strike is too weak when YOU feel it starts to degrade the eye appeal of the coin. It is up to each person for themselves to decide the strike isn't good enough. I favor color and luster before strike...but that's just me.

 

jom

[RGT]

Thanks for the opinions. I always look for a good strike now but I temper that with the other atributes of the coin and the strike characteristics of the issue.

 

I have recently gotten interested in trimes. I bought some a few years back for a type set and now I'm looking for more. I wasn't paying much attention to strike when I bought the first ones, and it shows. My type 1 was an average strike with average luster. Overall, just a run of the mill coin. My type 2 is worse with a below average strike. These are both coins I would pass on today.

 

But I don't get caught up in the strike designations like full head and full bell lines either. I can only recall one coin in my collection that even has such a designation (an FSB mercury). Sure, I would like to have coins with these strike characteristics, but the small difference is just not worth the extra cash to me usually.

 

That Flyer is an interesting coin and, like Tom, I would not mind owning it as a curiosity, but not at an AU price. But I also am a sucker for die cracks, cuds and clashed dies.