Let's See Your Weakly Struck Coins Here is a gem - Very lustrous ,tons of die polish but ,very weakly struck. 1940-S Walking Liberty Half for your consideration.
Bedford - I readily agree that the half is very weakly struck. But I don't agree that everything on that coin is a result of that weak strike. And there are several indicators that it isn't. Blow the picture up to full size and look at the date area first, right above the 1 and the 9. You can see where the high point there has been scraped off, and scraped in a vertical direction going N to S. And just above the knee of the left leg you can see a particularly deep gouge also running N to S, there is another smaller mark directly on the knee, and the color of the metal in those gouges is bright enough to indicate that the gouges occurred well after the coin was struck. Then you have more small scratches on the head, also running N to S and in line with the other 2 areas. There are several more marks in line all the way up the body from bottom to top. These indicate to me that something happened to that coin long after it was struck. Now the argument can be made that some of those marks are left over planchet marks, and I'd readily agree with that. But I would not agree that all of them are left over planchet marks for the reasons I have noted above, primarily differences in metal color, the fact they are all in line with one another, and their seemingly equal severity. Look at the differences in color of the smaller, less prominent marks elsewhere on the coin as compared to the ones I have noted. The smaller marks are much darker in color indicating they have been there longer. It is with coins like this that I think the TPGs, and many of us, will reach out and grab the excuse that because some of those marks can be left over planchet marks resulting from the weak strike, that all of them are. But it is my opinion that this is not so for the reasons I have given. Who's right ? Well obviously I think I am. Others may and probably will disagree. But in the interest of education I think it is more than worthwhile for me to post my comments.
I don't know if these would be considered weak strikes or worn dies. I would like to hear some thoughts.
I do see the marks you are describing . I would argue that many of the smaller ticks are left over from the original planchet surface as you stated . I also agree with you that the heavier ones you discribed in the leg area are post mint hits . It isn't MS63 or better for sure. As for the date IMO that is debatable on PMD or part of the weakness of strike. Overall though the coin has the majority of the classic weakness associated with Walkers & I thought it to be a good example to start with.
I appears to me that the top coin is a result of a weak strike & the bottom coin looks to have a worn reverse die & a newer obverse die. IMO weakness of strike would show on both the Obv. & Rev. of a coin with similar strength,like the fact that a coin under normal conditions will wear the same on both sides. It looks to me like the Obv. strike of the bottom coin is much stronger.
I actually think the bottom coin has a weaker strike than the top coin does. But it is deceiving because I would agree with you that the bottom coin was struck with a fairly new obverse die. And that can fool you into thinking the strike was stronger. What you are saying about a weakly struck coin showing weakness on both sides is correct. But if one of the dies is new and the other worn then weakness will still be on both sides, but it will be much more obvious on the worn die side than it will be on the new die side. This is because the worn die side has two problems going against it - weak strike plus worn die - while the other only has 1 problem going against it - weak strike. Now Jeffs are notorious for having weak strikes. This is even true of Jeffs struck with 2 new dies, and even on FS Jeffs. Finding a well struck Jeff is hard to do, more so for some years than others. Well struck Jeffs are not denoted by them being FS. They are denoted by full or nearly full details of Monticello. And that is the secret to these 2 Jeffs as well. The first was struck with 2 worn dies, and weakly struck as just about all of them are. The second was struck with 1 worn die, and 1 new or fairly new die. But if you look at the details of Monticello on the second coin you can see that those details are much worse, fainter, than they are in the first coin. This indicates that the second coin actually had the weaker strike of the two.
Holy Moly! Looks like someone took a belt sander to it. I've looked at a lot of TPG Walking Liberties and have never seen one this weak before, I almost think it deserves to be worth MORE!
Well, sir, How do you explain away the 26-D I'm showing @ top? Never had I ever heard this before! Of course one side of the coin can be struck weaker than the other, I see it all the time. The 26-D Buffalo Nickel I posted has a proof strike on the obverse while the reverse is mush. Carry on....DEX
I would reply with the explanation that was given here in the top paragraphs by GDJMSP - I failed to clarify of dies with the same starting marriage . But as explained there are exceptions & simple enough it can be the one die could wear out before the other & the new die would give a sharper appearance to its given strikes on the continuing run.
