Weak Strike and Eye appeal

so when TPG's consider "STRIKE" , do they grade the issue's strike or a consensus grade for the series. There seems to be terrible inconsistencies , if the latter is true. Looking at the Strike of this coin vs other MS66's, again I'll say that this one seems to have been given a very very liberal grade.IMO. I hope the coin was purchased "raw" under that grade and Lehigh96 went all in...or sent it in, sort of like pulling to an inside straight and catching. cudo's

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would assume they grade the strike for the issue. So, in this case they would grade the strike relative to other 1884-O Morgan Dollars. I don't know for sure but I assume they would have to do it this way because the difference in typical strike quality varies greatly from issue to issue.

 

I don't buy raw coins and I certainly don't chase inside straights on the flop unless I am getting over 11-1 on on my money and I am sure it won't get raised. The problem is that I don't think that the TPG's use strike as a limiting factor the way they do with surface preservation or luster.

 

because you can't edit FAQ threads ...

 

I'd buy the top one first and I'm sure I'd pay for the privilege. Grade isn't everything

 

In my opinion, the top coin should grade higher. I would say the top is a solid 66 while the bottom is a 65/66 slider (even though its in a 66 slab).

 

I think that is true...but I'm sure they do take it into consideration at some level. If a coin is an excellent strike for a poor strike date (like that one 1884-O you posted) they would bump it up I would think. However, I have seen some incredibly poorly struck coins graded high (a Peace Dollar you once posted comes to mind...but I think it was in an ICG slab though).

 

But we know this. And there is support in the ANA guild book. ANd frankly, that strike might be above average for an O.

Ruben

 

Big rambling PM sent on why I do not like poker any more - bottom line is nobody seems to want to have fun playing. It is all about winning. I can't play free online games cause imaginery money just doesn't cut it and I can't play for serious money cause I just can't be serious about the game. Glad you enjoy it even while losing.

 

I tend to agree with Lehigh on this one that his 1884-O is average at best. According to the VAM book (which is pretty much the authority on Morgan's), the 1884-O has a very wide range in strikes "from flat to full." It also states that "full strike specimens are fairly easy to locate." It even mentions that proof like specimens are known for this date. This information comes from page 262.

So, I would say that his coin isn't a terrible strike for the date...but certainly isn't any better than average. It's a little later in the series where coins get really bad (1892-O is probably the worst on the series from what I have seen).

 

Here is an 1884-O with an average strike. Notice the difference between the other two.



Better definition of the hair above the ear and some definition of the breast feathers.

 

I wouldn't call anything with that breast average ..

 

I wasent trying to edit anything, I was attempting to start a new thread

 

I would, here is another 1884-O with what I call an average strike.



I really think that people make too much of an allowance for poorly struck "O" mint Morgans. There are many with strikes just like the two I just posted. Enough that the one in the OP should not be considered and average strike IMO.

 

I agree lehigh96 , there is a significant difference ! and I like that coin.yeah

 

cant do that either

 

ok this isnt the forum for this, but how the heck do i start a new topic. post? I can reply, no problem but to start a new post, I feel like an idiot cause I can't figure this out.

 

I would call that one a little above average for an 1884-O.

This one I would call average for an 1884-O. Decent breast feathers but a little soft above the ear. I think people like to lump all "Os" into the poor strike category but there are several years that are decently struck. Now, there are a couple that are absolutely horrible (1892-O comes to mind). But, it is fair so say that the New Orleans mint was a little on the weak side in general.

For the OP coin, I would still say it is in the average range. I wouldn't call it a "poor strike" for this date...but I agree with an earlier statement of yours as "average at best." I think the second of the 2 coins you posted (both quoted here) is an excellent example of an 1884-O average strike.

 

Go to either the Coin Chat or US Coins forum and click the "New Thread" button at the top left of the screen.

 

Thank you lehigh96