Morgan 1891 - notoriously weak strike?

Hi all,

Read in Bowers Guide Book to Morgan Dollars that the 1891 is often seen with a weak strike and overall unattractive surfaces and that nice MS-specimens are often hard to find.

I have had a perhaps XF 1891 which I thought was well struck. Then I care over this very nice, probably MS 1891 that I want to upgrade with. Looking at it in more detail, it looks a little off to me. Or is it just that it’s actually really weakly struck like Bowers describes? Legend is weak, tip of wings seems weak and eagles breast too.

See photos and let me hear your comments Photos for both the MS and the XF coin is included

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

At first I thought it was wear, especially on the tip of the wing, as the luster is subdued there. But looking over all the devices, I think it’s just caked-on grease in those weakened areas. In a weaker strike, I’d expect more overall uniformity, and it’s just not there. The weakness is spotty, localized. Look at this top leaf that should have taken the impression better than the lower adjacent leaves. It had a little grease in it, that’s why it’s so flat there. Just my $.02.

 

The wing tips, alone, show wear on those photographs. This is a case where I agree with Doug—the texture shows obvious wear.

 

The strike appears weaker on the reverse than the obverse. So I'm wondering if there could have been a problem with the working reverse die. If yes, then the weakness should be present in multiple coins struck with the same working die, i.e. the same VAM number.

Is there any way to decide if a coin was weakly struck from a fully hubbed die versus being struck from a die that was weakly hubbed just by examining the one coin?

Cal

 

Look at the cap on Liberty. The cap is a dead giveaway for circulated vs uncirculated Morgans. There is definite flattened texture of the edges of the cap that are indicative of wear, as opposed to strike softness.

 

Thanks for the response, but my question was not about wear versus strike softness. It was about distinguishing a weak strike from a normal working die versus a strike from a weakly hubbed working die.

Cal

 

The reverse gives you an answer. Look at the feathers on the eagle’s Breast. Denuded means weak strike, as does softness in tail feathers.

 

OK. So how would a coin struck with a weakly hubbed working die look different?
Cal

 

Are you saying that the letters in the legend here are worn down, and not from a weak strike? This is really difficult to believe - the letters are protected in between the wing and the rims. To have that much wear on the letters, we'd be looking at an F-12 coin - and the rims would be nearly worn away. No, this is absolutely do to a weakly hubbed die.

Think about it like this - the high points on a coin are the low points in a die. If the coin isn't fully struck, the high points on the coin won't be fully realized. This is why details like the bell lines on the Franklin are important - they are among the high points, and thus won't be fully detailed on a weak strike.

However, when a die is being hubbed, the exact opposite is true. The die is the inverse of the hub. So, if a die isn't hubbed properly, you'll see low point details missing (such as the letters or stars around the edges) won't be fully created. This is absolutely not due to wear on the coin (the level of wear on the rest of the coin just doesn't support this theory).

 

I agree that wear can sometimes be visible in the open fields of a coin before it's obvious on the high points. Disturbed luster in the fields is often a great indicator of an AU vs MS coin.

What I strongly disagree with is *that* much wear can occur on *only* the letters around the rim, without *significant* wear elsewhere on the coin.

Ya see, it just doesn't make any sense at all. What we are seeing on these letters is *not* wear. The coin is AU, sure - look at the breast and the fields. It has disturbed luster. It does not have enough wear to cause this effect on the lettering.

 

Yes, I see it. Many thanks. It would have to be a working die produced from a weakly impressed working hub that would create a coin that would appear weakly struck even if it wasn't. Has such a thing ever been known to happen? I vaguely recall that there have been descriptions of some varieties where the phrase "all appear to have been weakly struck" or words to that effect. Could it be due to a hub that didn't have all the high-point detail?

Cal

 

You're wrong, Doug. Sorry. Sometimes you key on a single attribute and make a set of assumptions about that, and then blindly stick to your guns. In this case, you're just wrong.

I don't see any point in continuing this exercise in futility.

Yes, if all of the coins of a variety have the same characteristic details, one possibility is that there was a hubbing issue (either the hub wasn't sufficiently pressed into the die, or perhaps the hub itself had started to loose detail).

 

What you say makes sense, Doug. But wouldn't the same effect occur on a working hub that was not fully impressed by a master die? The bumpy, flat high points on that hub would be transferred to the working die as bumpy, flat low points. If the die were to be used for coining, then there would be bumpy, flat high points on coins even if the planchets were struck with normal force. An exception and probably very rare.

Cal

 

Doug, sometimes you come across as highly condescending. It's especially offensive when you're flat out wrong, such as in this thread.

@messydesk, @Insider ... somebody? Can you please explain to Doug why the lettering on this Morgan is not due to wear, but due to some other factor?

 

Partially filled reverse die. Strike is actually not bad for a 91. The hair above the ear looks pretty good, which is the first place I look for strike quality.