Adding a ‘STRIKE’ Grade to current MS grading system

He's been pushing it for years.

The hobby just isn't buying it as the current system works just fine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

ANACS was doing it on their photocertificates 30 years ago.

 

While I can't move a mountain, I can move an ant hill. That ant hill in my collection. I have all my coins listed in a spreadsheet. I'm going to start with my slabbed coins by adding in the remarks section of the sheets if the strike is weak, average, or strong. I'm not going to put any qualifier with it like, "Strong strike for that year or mint," on an otherwise average or weakly struck coin. A strong strike is a strong strike regardless of how well the dies and the presses were working in the mint that day or year.

And while I'm writing this, it occurs to me that 'strike' may not be the right nomenclature. I guess technically a coin could have a 'strong strike' and be perfectly flat with no details at all. What might be the single correct word that would describe a coin that is struck with all the depth and detail as the designer intended? Or is 'strike' the word?

 

how about full strike?

 

How long is that in dog years?

 

numbers don't go that high

 

Interestingly enough, designating strike quality would be in a TPG's best interest, allowing them more latitude to divorce strike from grade. It could conceivably allow them to call that New Orleans Morgan whose eagle's breast was so flat water dropped on it wouldn't flow as a "Weak Strike 66" instead of a 65. Matters not at all to you or me, but it would for those who only chase the numbers.

ACG did that back in the day, back when they weren't bad at grading. DLRC does it today, with a separate breakout for color.

I'm all for it.

 

Now here's a weak strike.

 

Posted below are pics of an ANACS certificate for a double eagle I owned in the 1980's. Strike was given a separate evaluation. Biggest problem with these certificates was the generation of multiple certificates from the same coin and then selling lesser quality coins with the duplicate certificates. Another huge problem was how to market something like this ... front and back grades by four different graders plus verbal designations of luster, eye appeal, strike and surface.

Slabs with a single, simple grade put a stop to the duplicate fraud scheme and greatly improved the ability to market coins. Most of us here know you have to look at the coin and not buy based on just the slab label. However, adding more and more qualifiers to the grade is leading back into the bad old days of needing a paragraph to market a coin but still not removing the need to look at the coin itself.

BTW, the coin was later submitted to PCGS. Guess the grade.

Cal

 

Actually it is NOT!

As with most things contributing to a coin's grade, there are "degrees" involved. Degrees in luster, degrees in the severity of marks, degrees in cleaning, and degrees in strike.

Therefore, in the "old days" (before 1977) your coin would have been described as having a "very flat strike" by students/instructors in a coin grading seminar. Additionally, it would not have been called a "mint error" by any professional numismatist dealing in errors!

IMHO, while that label is a howling joke, the coin inside is a beautiful example of a flat strike. Consider me an idiot but I should rather own your coin than one graded MS-66 in spite of the price difference!

 

Frankly I just pulled 5 levels out of the air. But this things tend to grow. I remember back when the MS grades in common use were 60, 65 and 70. Then 63 and 67 popped up and now we have 11 (60-70). Frankly I'd just a bit surprised someone hasn't tied to squeeze a 71 or 72 in to the mix. Sort of like saying you have 110 percent of something. So I'm sure that if we set some sort of stike standard with 3 levels, before lone we'd probably see 10. But I just be happy with a weak, average, strong grades for stike. Or just that every coin is average unless stated otherwise with a weak and strong qualifier.

 

Why would graders be better at determining strikes when they don't use strike criteria in the MS selection when it's supposed to be part of that criteria?

Don't confuse overgrading with strike not being part of the criteria for MS.

 

That was about as good as it got for certification, in my opinion, lacking only the security aspect. Grading became more idiot-proof after (meaning, more idiots were allowed to participate).

I'll hazard MS62 from PCGS.

 

So what was the PCGS grade??

 

Dave nailed it. MS62.