Help: Strike or Wear?

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by kanga, Oct 21, 2009.

Page 1 of 2
  1. kanga

    kanga 65 Year Collector

    This is one of the BIG holes in my knowledge.
    I can't reliably tell the difference between a weak strike and wear.
    This example concerns a 1954-S over D Jefferson nickel.

    The obverse obviously has flatness around the ear, but very few marks elsewhere.
    So I tend to think weak strike (not strange since it's a nickel and the hardest alloy).
    But the reverse is a LOT softer. No steps, and the potico and dome show little detail. And there's lots of small scratches in that area.
    But the fields appear quite clean.

    Anyway, opinions requested. Mostly weak strike or wear?
    [WARNING: Large images so that details can be seen.]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    kanga, Oct 21, 2009
    #1 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. mcarney1173

    mcarney1173 Senior Member

    Of all of the naturally worn nickels I 've seen, monticello looks just like that, even if the luster is present. I do notice in the "US" of Pluribus looks weak. It might be a greased filled die. Does it hurt the value? Maybe.
     
    mcarney1173, Oct 21, 2009
    #2 + Quote Reply
  4. bhp3rd

    bhp3rd Die varieties, Gems

    First rule of learning mint state, a must to turn the coin.

    First rule of learning mint state, a must to turn the coin.
    I we cannot turn the coin and gather the light it would not be possible to answer your question. Places with rub (or lack of) can only be seen by rotating the coin as far as I know. I would first expect it is a weak strike given that it is nickle.
     
    bhp3rd, Oct 21, 2009
    #3 + Quote Reply
  5. kanga

    kanga 65 Year Collector

    I'm not interested (at least at this moment) in the grade of the coin.
    Note that I said "Mostly weak strike or wear?"
    In fact I strongly suspect this coin is not MS.
    And I understand that with respect to AU and MS coins, an in-hand inspection is necessary.
    But I'm guessing that there are enough clues to make a "weak strike vs. wear" opinion possible.
    I'll take it with me to the Baltimore Whitman show and get an opinion there also.
    And I have a 1955-D over S too.

    The ultimate test would be to get them slabbed, but they don't have enough value to merit the expense.
    That's why I'm asking opinions in here.
     
    kanga, Oct 21, 2009
    #4 + Quote Reply
  6. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    On this coin, it's both. This one is actually an easy one, there are clues !

    On the obverse, you notice the flat hair. OK, that's the most obvious. But now look at the contact marks in the hair. See 'em ? There's lots of them right on top the flat spots and some of them are very fine, tiny. Also, look closely and notice the different color of the flat spots. In the bottom band of hair, see the indentation that is supposed to be there, the deep one to the left of center of that band. See the luster and color - now look at how grey the flat spot is beside it on the right. That's wear that causes that color change.

    Now where it can get confusing with some coins is that a weak strike will also have a different color than a lustrous area. But that color will be different yet from wear. It will tend to be lighter in shade than wear, but yet darker than a lustrous area. It takes experience to see this readily and know one from the other. But it can be learned. All those contact marks, expecially the tiny, tiny ones on the flat spots are clue it is wear.

    Now follow the back edge of the ponytail up, see the 2 clumps of hair that the edge points to. Look at them closely. The bottom clump has only a few, the upper one above and slightly right of it has a lot of contact marks. Clusters of marks like that only occur with wear.

    Now with coins that have wear, sometimes the rims can be another clue. If there is wear, often the rims will show it. They might be dinged up a lot, so remember to check them. On this coin, the obv rims are fairly clean though.

    Now look at the reverse. The first thing my eyes see are the motto - lots of little hits. Then I look at the rim around that area - quite a few more little hits, again some very tiny. Following the rest of the rim, in particular the bottom, tons of little hits. Even on the legends and down in between the letters.

    Now the center of the coin. The steps you mention, look at the two corners, some bigger hits, but a ton of tiny ones. And look at the clusters of small indentations on the left corner of the steps and a quarter way in from the right corner. Same thing for the dome and the left fascia of the portico. All of this indicates wear. To me, those tiny indentations always look like what happens when a coin falls on the sidewalk and gets stepped on. Once is enough. And if you wanna see what it looks like, take a new cent or something and drop it on the sidewalk. Then walk over and step on it. Then look at it - you'll see what I mean.

    So what you have here is a coin that was weakly struck to begin with and then received wear on top of it. Hopefully this will help to see it the next time.
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 21, 2009
    #5 + Quote Reply
  7. kanga

    kanga 65 Year Collector

    GDJMSP, thanks for the analysis.
    That's basically what I thought but I don't have the knowledge to analyze coins in the depth that you did.
    My opinion was mostly an experienced "feeling" vs. your objective analysis.
    I particularly like the "rim dings" diagnostic. Since the rims are SO prominent and unprotected on a coin, they certainly will show wear and handling early.

    I still have trouble with breaks in luster and differentiating between original planchet surfaces (weak strike) and luster breaks (wear).
    I think this is a problem that only time and hands-on experience will solve.
     
    kanga, Oct 21, 2009
    #6 + Quote Reply
  8. bhp3rd

    bhp3rd Die varieties, Gems

    This answer should be a top post and required reading, I am humbled!!!

    This answer should be a top post and required reading, I am humbled!!!
     
    bhp3rd, Oct 21, 2009
    #7 + Quote Reply
  9. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    When ya post one without the clues, that's when it gets tricky. Then Mike and Mark will chime in and say weak strike while I'm screaming wear :D
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 21, 2009
    #8 + Quote Reply
  10. jello

    jello Not Expert★NormL®

    at time we have to many cooks in the kitchen
    Kanga from your photo it maybe a D/S ???
     
    jello, Oct 21, 2009
    #9 + Quote Reply
  11. kanga

    kanga 65 Year Collector

    It's a 1954 S/D (Cherrypickers' FS # 5¢ - 033)

    My 1955 D/S doesn't appear to be the one shown in Cherrypickers'.
    They indicate there's something like 10 varieties, but since I don't have a Jefferson nickel book I can't ID it specifically.
     
    kanga, Oct 21, 2009
    #10 + Quote Reply
  12. jello

    jello Not Expert★NormL®

    Kange I am dyslexic and sometime I slip/brain fart.but your coin maybe what you think it is!
    tell us what the out come is:thumb::thumb::thumb:
     
    jello, Oct 21, 2009
    #11 + Quote Reply
  13. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    No argument on that count :thumb:
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 21, 2009
    #12 + Quote Reply
  14. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    0
     
    physics-fan3.14, Oct 21, 2009
    #13 + Quote Reply
  15. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Kanga, what he is trying to say is that for this determination, you have to examine the luster. How the luster flows over the high points will tell you whether or not its wear or strike. A weak strike will have undisturbed luster, whereas a coin with wear will show broken luster on the high points - because the tops have worn off, the luster will not be present.

    And I agree, great post GD!
     
    physics-fan3.14, Oct 21, 2009
    #14 + Quote Reply
  16. kanga

    kanga 65 Year Collector

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying there are (in general) two types of surfaces, those with luster and those without.
    But aren't there three?
    1. Strike luster (caused by the strike)
    2. Planchet "luster" (unstruck areas showing the original planchet surface; found on the high points on a weak strike)
    3. No/Broken luster (caused by wear)

    GD mentioned all three.
    My problem is differentiating between 2 and 3.
    My solution will be "Observe! Observe! Observe!" with the help of a pro.
     
    kanga, Oct 21, 2009
    #15 + Quote Reply
  17. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    physics-fan3.14, Oct 21, 2009
    #16 + Quote Reply
  18. Stewart

    Stewart Searcher of the Unique

    I completely agree:thumb:
    That is bar none the single best analysis of the differences between wear and weak strike I have ever read on any forum or any book for that matter.
    I learned exactly that lesson quite some time ago through many hours of comparison of coins with my eye in a loupe. but to see it spelled out so that some one can learn the differences in a few paragraphs is truly inspiring
    Thank You for that GDJMSP:bow:

    Stewart
     
    Stewart, Oct 22, 2009
    #17 + Quote Reply
  19. Billy Kingsley

    Billy Kingsley .

    I've noticed something weird on early Jeffersons, and while I have not had much exposure to the Buffalo nickels, they seem to have the same thing going on.

    It seems like the early issues (pre 1970s) wear differently then later dates. The more modern, newer nickels tend to scratch really, really easily, and when you get a roll of nickels from the bank, they will have all kinds of scratches, gouges, etc. Kinda like they went through a weed-wacker. Yet with the older nickels, they just wore down...they rarely have the scratches, dings, etc, that their newer counterparts have.

    I don't know why...you'd think being in circulation for so long they would have more but they are generally smoother, and the scratches that are on there tend to be VERY small.

    In the past year (and a few months) I have found nickels dating back to 1939.
     
    Billy Kingsley, Oct 22, 2009
    #18 + Quote Reply
  20. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    There's a couple reasons for that Bill. One, the relief on the newer coins is lower and thus the fields are exposed more to marks from stacking and rolling. Another would be the modern coin counters and sorters we have today. CoinStar machines are yet another - think about how the coins get fed from the tray into the machine, they are slid along the metal tray that is full of holes to the slot into the machine.

    Yet another is that the newer the coin, the more likely is for the scratches, hits, dings and marks to show up. But as the coin becomes more and more worn and the surface becomes smoother - it's not really smooth by the way, it just such a jumbled up mess of tiny scratches and hairlines all on top of one another so closely that you can't see them with the naked eye - then there are less raised ares for things to get caught on and thus scratch the surface. Instead they tend to slide right off leaving behind very faint marks.

    Add all of that togther and you get what you noticed.
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 22, 2009
    #19 + Quote Reply
  21. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    You rang? :D I can't tell either way from the images, but am not convinced the coin is worn. What looks as if it MIGHT be wear could be strike, color (or lack thereof) and lighting effects.


    Editd to add: Despite the excellent post supporting the wear argument, if I had to guess, just based on the images, I would go with unc. I don't see obvious wear in a number of places where I would expect to. That doesn't mean I wouldn't feel very differently if I had the coin in hand, however.
     
    Mark Feld, Oct 22, 2009
    #20 + Quote Reply
8 more messages...
Page 1 of 2
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page