Over the years I purchased quite a few coins from Heritage Mark, even sold quite a few through them. And just because I no longer collect coins that doesn't mean that I don't see them in hand. Even after I stopped collecting I still attended coin shows, both small and major, I still went to coin shops, and I still examine coins for others. As for the soft strike issue, yes the coin was weakly struck. They were all weakly struck. The point is, that eagle is not smooth because it was weakly struck, it is smooth because of wear. All one needs to do to recognize this is to look at MS examples. MS examples show you without a doubt what specific areas of detail will be lacking due to the weak strike. As I have said before, people use weak strike as an excuse for over-grading a coin. Well you can do that with high grade examples, but you can't do it with low grade examples. As for the article on the NGC site about weak strike - did you mean this part ? You might want to pay attention to the last sentence. Another peculiarity of these early coins that's noticeable on both mint state and circulated examples is that they were often incompletely or irregularly struck. Portions of the design may be missing, even on high grade coins, as the result of a less than full strike or due to some deficiency in the die itself. Weakness of strike should not affect the grade of a mint state coin unless it is quite severe, but worn coins are more likely to be evaluated by the amount of detail visible.
You and I are not in full agreement here but I don’t think we are that far apart either. We both agree the coin suffered from a weak reverse strike. We don’t agree on how much that affected the grade for this coin. I will concede that once a coin gets to a certain level of wear strike should be much less a determining factor for grade . Lets assume that PCGS did not net grade and graded based on the lower grade of the obverse or reverse. If that was the case then the probability that they took strike into consideration is rather high. How else would a coin like this get a F 12 grade without the graders being on Happy Pills. Now lets assume they did net grade and did not take strike into consideration , then they took a VF 20 obverse and a VG 08 Reverse and came up with F 12 . Based on the experience with my FH at both NGC and PCGS I would conclude that PCGS may factor in strike on a lower grade coin and NGC does not .
Like the husband caught in flagrante with his secretary by his wife. "who you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
sigh some things never change you never could understand me Uncle GD question 1. Would you rather buy the 62 coin for 62 money or would you buy the 64 coin for 64 money question 2 a 64 coin is always better than a 62 coin so what are you trying to say here I am not getting it.
spock no one could ever understand that the two questions above is what were you were asking based on your previous comments. question 1 answer - the 64 question 2 answer - I'm not trying to say anything other than to explain why the 64 is better than the 62
well youa re not no one last time i checked ad didnt youc laim to understand spockese a couple of years ago so you have regressed now ok for the second part why are you trying to explain that the 64 is better than a 62? all 64 coins are better than 62 coins provided the grading is accurate unless i am missing something?
Apparently you are missing something. Go back and read it. I asked Mike which coin he thought was nicer - before I told what the grades were. Then we discussed it. It's all there spock, everybody else seemed to understand it.