I need a bit of an education on how to determine a full strike vs. a non-full strike coin. Does someone have an example of each, that they can post side by side for a quick comparison? Thanks!
I'm not at my computer (using the one at the library) so I can't post any pics but the main thing to look for is luster - luster on the highest parts of the devices is an indication of a weak strike while broken luster is an indication of wear. Also, with a weak strike you may also see scratches that were on the planchet before striking and remain because the metal in those high areas was not disturbed during striking. Hope this helps.
Still lost, Hobo! I was reading the thread about trying to guess the grade of a heavily toned 1948 quarter. They were mentioning it's strike, but with that example there was no luster at all. I thought strike was an indication of how sharp the details were. In a nutshell, my problem is I can't determine what is a weak strike vs. what is normal wear.
strike.... full strike usually means great detail for which the design was intended. this design can be compared to a proof coin in some cases for detail purposes. something to keep in mind also is that certain years of certain denominations frequently had "weak" strikes for a mint and or year. buffalo nickels are notorious here. if you just collect certain coins,like buffs,it is wise to educate yourself with books dedicated to the series. they will point out which years and mints had the weak or strong strikes for the series. hth steve
Not always true but if you look at the small details of most coins, if it was a weak die those are faint as well as the rest of the coin. If just a worn coin, some of many of the small details lower in the design are still prevelant. The higher the item on a coin the faster it is worn. Example is the dates on the Buffalo Nickels. If a weak strike the date may still be there but the rest of the coin appears as worn. As I said not always true. A weak compared to worn coin is a tuff one to call.
This points out the weakness in using only the Sheldon scale to determine value and collectibility. Sometimes a full strike EF or AU coin can be as attractive or more attractive than an MS coin because of the strike. But the MS coin, particularly if slabbed, will always command a higher price.
full strike is really better explained by the phrase full details. regardless of the coin series. when the dies come together, the metal will flow into the design areas. the area where there is the greatest space differential will be the last area where the metal will flow. on morgan dollars, this happens tp be the eagles' breast on the reverse and the hair lines directly above the ear. for example, to preserve the dies, the new orleans mint used less pressure to get more use out of the dies, hence, many new orleans morgans have a weak strike. to compare ...look at the original approved design of the coin..compare that w/ a proof coin and then a business sttrike. see if all the details are there. it is more difficult to tell as the coin wears. once again, the highest areas on the coin will be the first to wear. when buying a given coin, especially a mint state coin, i will pass on a weak details coin in favor of one w/ full details.....hope this makes some sense to you and helps a little,,,,,steve
here is an example ...the pics aren't great but compare the hairlines above the ear and the eagles breast on the reverse. note the better details on the 1881 vs the 1885-O. hope this helps some.....steve
Excellent point! As mentioned many coins, including a lot of 19th century type, are notorious for weak strikes. My personal example would be the 1867 2 Cent Piece. I have seen an NGC slabbed MS64RB with virtually no trace of the word WE in the motto. If I see a VF or higher with a bold WE and no problems I will most likely buy it. I don't buy too many because I don't see too many. In essence a coin like that should command a premium even if circulated due to the scarcity of truly good strikes.
Perhaps the best way to tell a weak strike from wear is color and light reflection. When a coin shows wear the color of the metal in the worn area is different than that of the metal in the areas with no wear. Wear is typically darker in color than a weakly struck area. Now partly that is due to luster being gone or broken in the areas with wear. And as a result of the luster being gone that area will reflect light quite differently. The same is true for a coin with a weak strike, the areas that do not strike up fully will not have luster either. However, those weakly struck areas, even though they don't have luster, will not be the same color as worn areas. The difference is subtle, but it is detectable to the experienced eye. Personally, I think far too many people tend to use a weak strike as an excuse to overgrade a coin. Now perhaps some are not aware that they are doing this because they can't tell the difference between the two things and that they have often heard others say that a given coin is weakly struck as an explanation for a lack of detail. But it is not always the case. Quite often the lack of detail is due to just plain old wear. I truly believe that the TPG's often make the same mistake. Yes, there are many coins that are known for being weakly struck. But there are many more that are not. And it is up to the collector to know which is which, for often you will see coins that are said to be weakly struck by the owner or seller when the entire mintage of that date/mint is typically found to be well struck. And if you do not know the difference, it is all too easy to be fooled by what seems to be a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation.
