Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Irespire, post: 767056, member: 14858&quot;]I didn&#039;t see that he did, and I still maintain he shouldn&#039;t necessarily:</p><p><br /></p><p>The strike vs. wear debate is a huge thing that I&#039;ve seen come up MANY times here. The way I see it is that weakly struck coins should be sold at a lower price than hammered ones (and they are), but they DO have a different look than a strongly struck VF, and thus cannot be treated as such. I have seen this with many slabbed coins (such as that AU details coin I showed you, it&#039;s undeniable that in terms of &#039;detail it looks VF-35 at first glance at best), and sometimes TPG&#039;s will make various errors mistaking strike for wear. </p><p><br /></p><p>There are some lincoln cent dates/mints (particularly coins like the 1925-S) that appear to have VF detail in AU-55, mostly because of a mushy strike. No doubt, if mushy strikes are the rule, then a strongly struck coin commands a huge premium. With this coin, they are not, and thus the value is bumped down a bit, but not to VF level. I mean, we definitely can agree to disagree, but I feel that this kind of &#039;fast judgment&#039; based on a poor strike tends to happen more often than not, especially with people posting blurry pictures.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in