Grading a weak strike.

Is it possible for a weakly struck coin, missing some detail, to grade higher that about MS 60-62, or so?

It's my understanding that part of the grade given to a coin is related to the details of the design. For instance, if an otherwise pristine, unmarked, uncirculated and untouched coin such as a 1921 Peace Dollar was missing hair and feather details and the lettering blended into the field, could it be given a top rating?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Definateley , though it would prevent it from some of the better grades , my guess would be that it couldn't be a MS-65 or higher but I could be wrong .
rzage

 

Absolutely possible. Just look at the 1922 Lincolns. Particularly the weak reverses that may not even have wheat lines visible, but they will grade as high as 64.

 

So a 'Strong Strike' of the dies to the planchet would theoretically (all other factors were the same) result in a higher graded coin?

Take Care
Ben

 

I think it's posible on a weak struck series like SLQs to raise the grade ' so theoretically it could happen on any set .
rzage:smile:hatch::hammer:

 

So it's not the strike raising the grade , but a poor strike preventing a grade ?
rzage:smile

 

When the OP said "MS-62ish" on a weakly struck coin I automatically figured all the factors were ideal for perfection or near prefection -- MS-68/69/70, since, well you know, MS-65...

Naturally, a coin struck properly with the same foundation would score higher right?

 

As has been discussed, a coin with a weak strike will grade lower in the MS grades. If the same planchet (prefection) were to have received a flawless, regular/strong strike and careful handling afterwards, just like the weakly struck MS-60/62ish (minus the strong strike of course) coin wouldn't it tend to figure that the assigned grade be higher?

That's all I was getting at.

Ben

 

Interesting...

I'm perhaps stuck in 1980 when I last collected. At that time (as I understood it at the time) grading was a matter of the visible detail compared with an "ideal" BU example of the same coin, now called MS-70 or PR-70. I may be wrong (again) but at that time, if a coin left the coin press with less than perfect detail then it could not approach a perfect grade. Also, the coin was graded to the weakest side, not like today's dual grade.

Oh well...

An ancillary question. In reality, does rarity play any part in grading? That is, say you have two absolutely identical IHCs with equal wear, color and detail. If you covered the dates then everyone would give them identical grades. However, if you uncovered the dates and one was an 1877 and the other was a 1909, would they then still grade identically? (in this, and any similar comparison, I'm assuming that there are no other details on the coin that would indicate its date.)

I'm thinking that, while grading it ideally objective, there's really a lot more subjectivity and bias involved than there should be.

 

Of course, we are all talking about "market grading" and this is very much so the realm of the TPGs, so to speak. Now, many of us have seen quite a number of slabbed coins in just about every grade possible.

Now, strike is very much so a part of the market grading and is also, as such, a subjective issue, which is also directly relevant to the issue of eye appeal overall. I have myself seen TPG coins (even from the Big Duopoly) that have been given differing grades, one which falls into the market standard, and one that "exceeds" the market standard. On these coins, I have noticed that the only difference seems to be the fact that the strike and luster, and thus overall eye appeal, is rather exceptional...exceedingly exceptional...for the coin.

That is why I stand on my opinion that market grading pushes grades both ways...not from practice, but from experience with TPG slabbed specimens. I believe this apparent practice is what others are also seeing in the TPGs, and is one of the peeves that causes some to rant and rave about them.

This is one of my own peeves against TPGs, although this apparent practice is seldom seen, especially if you do not regularly see a number of the same type from the same TPGs at the same time. I will hold, though, that there is the appearance that this is a practice of some graders, to raise the grade for exceptional market aspects...you can even see this on AU pieces slabbed as MS, though it may not necessarily be the strike raising the grade, this is what is "apparent" on some coins.

 

-

 

So you're from the era where dealers would advertise coins as "MS-65++: and "MS-65-". Well, not much has changed except now they give grades with stars and stickers. New generation, new marketing technique, same old hype.

That's still true, unless one refers to the grades assigned by "self-slabbers".

I know exactly what you are talking about, and the practice is referred to in the ANA Standards, which I'll answer to GD's post.

BINGO! Grading is subjective. So, one's own bias is king in the realm of grading. However, to say that there's a lot more subjectivity than there should be is probably only because of the way market grading adjusts the technical grade without leaving any indication as to why. I would personally prefer the technical grade to be assigned to a coin with everything subjective left to remarks like: "MS-63, exceptional strike and luster" or "MS-66, black spots".

To me, this form of grading and notation leaves a lot more to be understood. Why waste time looking at everybody's MS-65 coins when the technical grade is higher of lower, but certain factors have raised or lowered the grade? This is why we have the advent today of CaC stickers, PQ designations, * designations, etc. Call the coin what it is. Push the actual grade back to a more objective standard and leave the subjectiveness where it belongs in opinions and remarks.

 

Looks like you already got clarification and answered it.

Personally, I like the idea of split grades. I buy coins sometimes simply for the fact that I "need" or want to take a picture of a coin in a particular grade, or I like the way the coin looks, though the opposite side I could care less about.

If I want to take a photo of an MS-67 wheatie, I do not want the "worst side" to have been fudged from an MS-66 because of whatever reasons, and I do believe that TPGs do this. I would rather pay "lower" prices also when the purpose is simply for a photo. I would rather pay "MS-66 money" on an MS-66/67 coin in order to get an MS-67 reverse photo.

Very small niche indeed, but split grading would definitely lower overall costs.



p.s.
Yes, I do believe that TPGs will sometimes apply the "better" side to a coin if the grader believes "the market will accept it".