1890 O Morgan - weak strike or wear

I'm confused. So what is your grade opinion? I'm trying to learn, not be contrarian.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wear obviously.

 

That means nothing unless Charley says so.

 

Yes. The Chocolate Factory owner....

 

The original movie is one of my top 4 favorites, with the Oompa Loompas and the squirrels... good stuff.

9It doesn't take much to amuse me, though)

 

If a planchet had uneveness to it, would that cause strikes like this?.

To me, the number of weak strikes should make that scenario impossible.

Maybe planchets were under thickness?

Sorry if this is a dumb question, I don't have alot of knowledge about the striking process.

 

It is definitely not a dumb question. In fact, it is a very astute question, especially concerning Morgan and Peace $.

 

I've got a nice--ish one though! They're certainly pricey once you get into grades that you can still see some detail.

 

I thought I had one, but it was a Philly

 

Roger Burdette in the Winter 2024 BCCS journal proposed a theory that the early 1900s New Orleans "mumps" half dollars were caused by thin planchets. He proposed that an adjustable screw/cylinder inside the blank punch with a rounded end is extended below the punch. This pushes metal downwards before the planchet is cut, resulting in slightly concave blanks. Supposedly this could be used on coin strips that were rolled too thin, to make the blanks the proper weight. Myself, I can't really picture how that works, other than perhaps it stretches enough metal into the blank from the strip to bring it up to correct weight. Then the planchets had to be flattened, but he doesn't go into that part.

So yes, thin planchets could have something to do with all the weak strikes for 1890-O Morgans. Or maybe they didn't properly dish the dies. Or strike pressure was too low. Or a combination of factors - whatever didn't force enough metal into the die to fill it.

 

Well Barney a few years ago I said I wouldn't get on here when I have good buzz, I failed a couple nights ago. I am having a hard time understanding exactly what I was saying. I would guess 63 with the major contact on the chin and in front of the profile.

 

Much of the weak strike problems in New Orleans was due to the planchets not being properly annealed before striking.

 

Is that fact or opinion? I’d always been of the opinion it was the weak striking pressure. If you look at the weak areas, the breast and hair above the ear, those are where the cavity is that isn’t going to take the strike the same way as the rest of the planchet. That’s opinion, also. The only one struck really well was the 1921, leastways, far as I know.

 

The 1904 New Orleans strike was one of their good ones, as far as that mint is concerned.

Overall, 1880S, 1881S, and 1882S were about as clean and well struck as Morgans got. There are so many examples of nearly proof-like strikes of those that they are common.......... and graders mostly ignore them regarding that designation.

 

Roger Burdette has turned up correspondence showing that improper planchet preparation was the cause for a lot of the New Orleans weak strikes. Striking pressure is fixed at the time the press is first calibrated to a specific pressure and tested. It's not something that is easily adjusted.