Worst struck 1921 Peace Dollar i've ever seen...

[jerseycat10]

Thought you fellows would enjoy this:

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/peace-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1921-1-ms64-ngc-ngc-census-3510-1310-pcgs-population-3981-1456-mintage-1-006-473-numismedia-wsl-price-for-probl/p/1219-39003.s

[GoldFinger1969]

I don't know Peace Dollars that well, why does this strike stink ?

[Kenneth F]

Big ole flat spot on the side of Liberty's head.. should be hair.

[cpm9ball]

What is wrong with it? She is ice fishing on the Great Lakes and that's an earmuff.

 

Chris

[TonerGuy]

Doesnt strike mean anything in regards to grades on these coins ? Ive seen 62s and 63s with much more hair detail...

[nwcs]

Maybe the luster is better? In the ANA grading class they said that luster will trump a weak strike, especially in a series known for weak strikes. But it is limited as to how far up it'll go.

[BillJones]

I don't know Peace Dollars that well, why does this strike stink ?

 

This is more like what you usually see for this issue. Very few pieces were fully struck, BUT very few were as poor struck as the example that started this thread.

 

[MarkFeld]

Doesnt strike mean anything in regards to grades on these coins ? Ive seen 62s and 63s with much more hair detail...

 

You've probably seen AU's with better detail, also, but so what? I don't like the coin, but it serves as a good example of how little strike can matter, especially in the case of an issue that isn't typically well struck.

[wdrob]

 

Regardless of making allowances for poor strike, I would say a MS64 was rather generous.

 

Watch it break auction records.

 

 

 

 

 

[orifdoc]

1921 dollars seem to have a bit of their own grading system, even among Peace dollars. Strike isn't terribly important up to (and sometimes including) MS65. Only at MS66 is it unusual to see a poorly struck specimen. Strike isn't the most significant aspect of grading for any coin, but for these it's given even less priority.

[wdrob]

So you would be a buyer at MS64 on that one?

 

 

[BillJones]

Regardless of making allowances for poor strike, I would say a MS64 was rather generous.

 

Watch it break auction records.

 

 

 

 

 

Given the sub-par strike for even a well-known weakly struck issue, I would not grade that coin anything beyound MS-62. I've seen that happen with coins that had very few marks that had a satin instread of brilliant finish. Why shouldn't it apply here?

[jerseycat10]

Regardless of making allowances for poor strike, I would say a MS64 was rather generous.

 

Watch it break auction records.

 

 

 

 

 

Given the sub-par strike for even a well-known weakly struck issue, I would not grade that coin anything beyound MS-62. I've seen that happen with coins that had very few marks that had a satin instread of brilliant finish. Why shouldn't it apply here?

 

This seems like a textbook case for where market grading should've been applied. It might technically be a 4, but it's not a $700 coin because of the strike, but maybe it's a $300 coin, let's put it in a 2 holder.

[KeyMan64]

The coin linked to in the OP would not be a coin for me.

[orifdoc]

So you would be a buyer at MS64 on that one?

 

 

Me? No. I LOVE Peace dollars, but that's not the sort of coin I'd be looking for, and strike isn't the only reason. I never said my own standards and the standards of the TPGs meshed perfectly.

[TonerGuy]

Doesnt strike mean anything in regards to grades on these coins ? Ive seen 62s and 63s with much more hair detail...

 

You've probably seen AU's with better detail, also, but so what? I don't like the coin, but it serves as a good example of how little strike can matter, especially in the case of an issue that isn't typically well struck.

 

Okay - how little does strike matter in regards to grading ? What % of the grading is based on strike - for 1921 Peace $...

[MarkFeld]

Doesnt strike mean anything in regards to grades on these coins ? Ive seen 62s and 63s with much more hair detail...

 

You've probably seen AU's with better detail, also, but so what? I don't like the coin, but it serves as a good example of how little strike can matter, especially in the case of an issue that isn't typically well struck.

 

Okay - how little does strike matter in regards to grading ? What % of the grading is based on strike - for 1921 Peace $...

 

I can't answer in terms of %, other than to say (quite) small. As for the coin in this thread - based on the images and ignoring the strike, I would grade it MS64. But considering the strike, I would grade it MS62 or MS63.

 

Either NGC thought it merited a higher grade and knocked it down a point or more due to strike, or they thought it deserved a 64, with or without the weak strike..

 

Often, I see posters make reference to the strike on a given coin holding the grade back. And in most cases, the strike is not enough of an issue for me to even consider deducting from the grade.

[CaptHenway]

In the old days, ANACS would have graded it MS-64/64 and added the comment "Weakly struck" on the photo certificate. And people would have know what it looked like from the certificate.

[johnny9434]

nice coin but thats nothing i would want to bid on. id wait for the right one in this case

[wdrob]

Okay - how little does strike matter in regards to grading ? What % of the grading is based on strike - for 1921 Peace $...

 

I can't answer in terms of %, other than to say (quite) small. As for the coin in this thread - based on the images and ignoring the strike, I would grade it MS64. But considering the strike, I would grade it MS62 or MS63.

 

Either NGC thought it merited a higher grade and knocked it down a point or more due to strike, or they thought it deserved a 64, with or without the weak strike..

 

Often, I see posters make reference to the strike on a given coin holding the grade back. And in most cases, the strike is not enough of an issue for me to even consider deducting from the grade.

 

The timing on this topic is right on cue for me. Maybe I will be able to better understand why strike plays such a small role in grading, if that is what you implied.

 

I sometimes get hung up on a certain Year and MM of a particular coin so I can learn more about it. A while back it was the 1847-P Seated Liberty Quarter Dollar. I have yet to find a half decent one, other than a $16k proof, and I still believe that the surviving details free examples in AU58 and above are few and far between.

 

Now I have focused my attention on the 1896-O Morgan Dollar. I have been studying this coin quite a bit and from what I can tell, there are a huge amount of MS coins improperly graded as AU58 because the strike is weak and apparently graders are either not aware of the issue or they just don't care.

 

Wayne Miller wrote: "No other Morgan dollar is as consistently deficient in luster, strike, and degree of surface abrasions as the 1896-O. A fully struck piece is rare, an 1896-O with minimum bagmarks is even more unusual. In the author's opinion, the 1896-O is the rarest of all Morgan dollars in truly Gem condition.

 

Based on this information, I have searched example after example in the HA archives, from all TPG companies and there seems to be a overwhelming amount of, in my opinion, AU58 graded examples that should have been MS62 or higher.

 

For this reason, I ask; is it possible that they SHOULD give greater attention to strike?

 

 

[Hack]

Here is a 1921 Peace MS 61 with a near full strike that shows the hair detail near the cheek. It appears that no consideration is given in the grade for a full strike. This is an attractive coin with nice luster and I wondered why it was a MS 61, but the grades on the Peace dollars give me a lot of trouble.

[MarkFeld]

Okay - how little does strike matter in regards to grading ? What % of the grading is based on strike - for 1921 Peace $...

 

I can't answer in terms of %, other than to say (quite) small. As for the coin in this thread - based on the images and ignoring the strike, I would grade it MS64. But considering the strike, I would grade it MS62 or MS63.

 

Either NGC thought it merited a higher grade and knocked it down a point or more due to strike, or they thought it deserved a 64, with or without the weak strike..

 

Often, I see posters make reference to the strike on a given coin holding the grade back. And in most cases, the strike is not enough of an issue for me to even consider deducting from the grade.

 

The timing on this topic is right on cue for me. Maybe I will be able to better understand why strike plays such a small role in grading, if that is what you implied.

 

I sometimes get hung up on a certain Year and MM of a particular coin so I can learn more about it. A while back it was the 1847-P Seated Liberty Quarter Dollar. I have yet to find a half decent one, other than a $16k proof, and I still believe that the surviving details free examples in AU58 and above are few and far between.

 

Now I have focused my attention on the 1896-O Morgan Dollar. I have been studying this coin quite a bit and from what I can tell, there are a huge amount of MS coins improperly graded as AU58 because the strike is weak and apparently graders are either not aware of the issue or they just don't care.

 

Wayne Miller wrote: "No other Morgan dollar is as consistently deficient in luster, strike, and degree of surface abrasions as the 1896-O. A fully struck piece is rare, an 1896-O with minimum bagmarks is even more unusual. In the author's opinion, the 1896-O is the rarest of all Morgan dollars in truly Gem condition.

 

Based on this information, I have searched example after example in the HA archives, from all TPG companies and there seems to be a overwhelming amount of, in my opinion, AU58 graded examples that should have been MS62 or higher.

 

For this reason, I ask; is it possible that they SHOULD give greater attention to strike?

 

 

The graders are going to know that issue tends to be softly struck. So my guess is that the coins are graded AU58 (rather than mint state) for reasons other than weak strike.

 

Often, very minor signs of circulation on a coin will not necessarily show up in an image. So just because the coin looks unc. (with a weak strike) in an image, doesn't mean it's really unc. and deserving of an unc. grade.

[RWB]

I've seen much weaker strikes with higher numeric "grades." It's for those who buy the label not the coin.

[wdrob]

Roger, I agree with you there. Someone on this very forum had a very nice 1896-O (it fit my taste) and looked to be one of the undergraded examples I am speaking of.

 

We were willing to work out a deal and I bought the coin. I don't care that it says AU58.

 

I just think Mark approaches some issues with the illogical position that although graders do make mistakes, they are isolated and infrequent, and that every grader in those rooms are 100% "there" on every single day.

 

Mark probably considers my approach to the issue illogical as well since I think they could do better. Part of doing better might be actually paying attention to strike and giving it a fair percentage of the grade while taking into account what is (or should be) known strike deficiencies with and particular series, year, mm, etc...

 

Regardless, I respect Mark's opinion and am well aware that he has been in the trenches and I have no experience to even begin to compare.

 

 

[AHFreak]

I've seen much weaker strikes with higher numeric "grades." It's for those who buy the label not the coin.

 

And for ANY AND ALL OF YOU WHO BUY THE COIN, NOT THE LABEL, If you do not have a copy of (or at a minimum haven't read it a few times)

 

The ANA's grading standards for U.S. coins... Both PCGS and NGC use the ANA's grading standards... Obviously these standards cannot account for the "subjectivety" aspect, but it is a critical foundation to understand if you are buying coins versus just buying labels.

 

 

[wdrob]

 

And for ANY AND ALL OF YOU WHO BUY THE COIN, NOT THE LABEL, If you do not have a copy of (or at a minimum haven't read it a few times)

 

The ANA's grading standards for U.S. coins... Both PCGS and NGC use the ANA's grading standards... Obviously these standards cannot account for the "subjectivety" aspect, but it is a critical foundation to understand if you are buying coins versus just buying labels.

 

 

But they don't. I was naive to that extent and bought one every year. I would offer why a certain coins feature was irrelevant in the grading since it was not in either the Primary or Secondary Focal Areas according to the ANA Grading standards.

 

Mark Feld's answer. I don't think anyone goes by that book anymore. I am pretty sure it was Mark but if I am wrong then I will see who it was. I know the exact thread it was stated in.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

 

..I just think Mark approaches some issues with the illogical position that although graders do make mistakes, they are isolated and infrequent, and that every grader in those rooms are 100% "there" on every single day...l

 

 

I have no problem if you think my position is illogical. However, I will respond to the rest of what you posted above.

 

I think that graders offer informed opinions. But that their assigned grades/opinions are "incorrect" on a more frequent basis than "isolated and infrequent". And of course I don't think "that every grader in those rooms are 100% "there" on every single day". That said, I am merely offering my opinion.

 

 

When someone disagrees with an assigned grade it is because they have a different opinion. And that opinion can be informed or uninformed.

[coinman_23885]

I would have net graded the piece to MS62 (or possibly, but less likely MS63) based on the images.

[MarkFeld]

I've seen much weaker strikes with higher numeric "grades." It's for those who buy the label not the coin.

 

And for ANY AND ALL OF YOU WHO BUY THE COIN, NOT THE LABEL, If you do not have a copy of (or at a minimum haven't read it a few times)

 

The ANA's grading standards for U.S. coins... Both PCGS and NGC use the ANA's grading standards... Obviously these standards cannot account for the "subjectivety" aspect, but it is a critical foundation to understand if you are buying coins versus just buying labels.

 

 

If, in fact, NGC and PCGS use the ANA's grading standards, they ignore them in a great many cases.

[wdrob]

Mark, that is what makes it so frustrating to a new collector who is trying to learn to grade effectively. It was, and continues to be, in my situation.

 

I bought the books, as a new collector is normally advised to do. I studied them focusing mainly on the series and types that interested me the most. I tried to apply those outlined standards to making purchases, I would then submit coins to be graded only to eventually realize that they don't follow those standards, and just kind of make them up as they go, depending on the market forecast.

 

If I have learned only one extremely valuable lesson from you and all others here it would have to be this sage advice. You will only ever develop your grading skills by looking at thousands of coins. ANA Grading Standards books just do not cut it.