Weak Strike and Eye appeal

Misfire, I'll try that again...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If you were to save the photo you'd see he has it described as a NGC66. Lehigh, you must be more clever in the future.

I saved it to do this to it, just remove that scratch. It's immaterial whether that's from coin-contact or not, what's rather important is how distracting you find it. I keep it out of gem because of that, it bothers me that much. If it looked like this, OTOH, I could even give it a 66, because of its other redeeming qualities:

 

Nothing much interesting going on right now, there's a lull in the joint, so I thought I might just try and answer this question, and hopefully we might create some controversy in the process, and liven things up some. The way I see that issue is like this. If you'll grab yourself an old Redbook (go back to about the '60s), you'll see how the ANA has always regarded strike. Specimens that are strongly/weakly struck will command higher/lower prices, respectively. It's the TPGs, however, who are taking a strong strike for a particular year/mint, for example, and kicking up the resultant "market grade" for it. The reason? There's a market for that. As such, the TPGs will grade these freak strikes up or down, depending, because they're grading for the market. That's what I think. Thank you.

 

OK - the mystery gets deeper. What do you attribute the break in tone to and how do you know the toning didn't happen in the bag?

Ruben

 

i agree witht he indian rupees one look i know with us coins if i look at something below gem my mentor takes out his long stick

however dear GD we all know that tpgs bump grades what slab is it in? i personally think it made it into a 65 although i completely agree with what you have said

 

1884-O Morgan Weak Strike and Eye Appeal

and so, this is why I can never agree with many of the PCGS & NGC Mint State Grades. Before I made an arse of myself, I went through a stockpile of Old Auction Catalogs ( 10 -20 yrs old now) and viewed some of the more recent online auctions. All I can say, is that if you are happy with the coin ( i'm certain you are thrilled ) and have the grade you think the coin deserves, nothing else matters. Thanks for the exercise, Lehigh96, will you teach me to play poker too?:bow::smile

 

For me, the strike doesn't hurt the eye appeal because this date is known for a poor strike. If I saw a 1881-S with that strike I would say that it absolutely hurts the eye appeal, but this is a normal strike for a 1884-O. So, I wouldn't knock it for the strike.

I think people forget that each date/mint needs to have the strike evaluated for what that date is known for. An 1881-S and an 1884-O have very different typical strikes. You can't hold both to the same standard.

Now, the coin is very attractive. It does look like it has some pretty serve hits but it also looks like some of those might be scratches in the holder. It's kind of hard to tell which is which in the photo. I know the grade has already been announced...but I can't give a grade opinion because I am struggling to tell what marks are on the coin and what aren't. It's clearly MS because I see no wear and it has decent eye appeal (typical strike and nice toning). The numerical grade would depend on the marks.

 

Personally, I think the grader's were very liberal in determining the Strike grade. Not to mention I am flawed by the overall grade. I realize that the New Orleans date/mint are known for their weak strikes, and consequently allow for that in grading that aspect. Having said that, there are 66's out there that definitely put this one on the lower end. IMO. But I continue to live and learn, and more often than not, amazed. In the final analysis, the Obverse is the controlling factor. Now my eyes are failing badly, but what I did see , seemed to be to many negative hits. But, Thanks for promoting this exercise.

 

I just want you to know that poker lessons are not free.

 

I personally agree with the overall grade of this coin assigned by NGC and yes it is an MS66. The surface preservation is well deserving of the MS66 grade. I don't really know what you guys are seeing to grade it lower, maybe the photo is too big. The eye appeal is that of a premium gem and the luster although not blazing should not really reduce the grade. The only grade limiting factor on this coin is the strike. I understand the premise behind allowing for strike characteristics for date/mm, but the strike on this coin is not above average for the date/mm which should preclude it from the MS66 grade. That was the whole point of the thread.

 

I called it an MS 66 because I've looked at countless Morgans on Heritage and can generally spot the photographs and I didn't see any hit marks and thought the streak was just because of an imperfection in the silver.

Ruben

 

ok. elaborate on your definition of a "hit" for me. thanks.

 

after GD and i are done with him he will have to pay you to teach u poker

 

oh boy.

 

Hey Lehigh, are those marks I see on the coin on the case or on the coin? There are a number of what look like large marks (especially one to the right of Liberty) but I can't help but feel it's a ding on the slab itself.

 

I don't really know what to tell you guys. The Morgan posted in this thread is super clean with no major hits at all and not even any minor hits in the focal areas. Here is a photo comparison of a well struck 1884-O with some bag marks from Dutchman next to my coin.



:kewl:

 

Spock,

My first lesson I will teach both you and Doug is the term "REBUY". Bring your money fish.:smile

 

That last set of pictures really shows the difference between weak strike and strong strike. Maybe I missed something, but I can not get past the what ever it is near unum. Then the difference is toning on the cheek(and in front of face) may them look like hits, when they aren't. I can't help but sticking with 64 based of the pictures and what draws my eyes - all on the obverse. To me the top coin is 2 grades higher than the original coin. Just my humble opinion.

And what is this new term "rebuy".