Most collectors are aware of strike designations for certain series of coins. Here are a few examples: FB--Full Bands--Mercury Dimes FT--Full Torch--Roosevelt Dimes FH--Full Head--Standing Liberty Quarters FS--Full Steps--Jefferson Nickels However, strike designations can be misleading. Although they indicate that the most difficult striking aspect of the coin is fully struck, it is not a guarantee of a fully struck coin. There are many examples of coins with strike designations that are weakly struck. The most common examples can be found within the Jefferson Nickel and Standing Liberty Quarter series. Jefferson Nickels Here is a 1941-D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS67 6FS. Notice that the step detail is incredible but strike weakness can be seen throughout the rest of the coin. The windows and doors in Monticello are incomplete, the pillars are not distinct, the hair detail is weak, and the strike was insufficient to remove the planchet irregularities on Jefferson's jawline. Now compare it to this 1942-S Jefferson Nickel PCGS MS66 FS. Although this coin only shows 5 full steps, the remainder of the coin is much better struck than the 1941-D and shows full details of the design. All doors and windows are visible, the pillars and other features of Monticello are distinct, all hair detail is present, and there is no remnants of any planchet flaws. Viewing the reverses side by side shows clearly the difference in the strike between the two coins. Standing Liberty Quarters Now let us compare the obverse of a 1930-S NGC MS67 FH SLQ and a 1930 NGC MS67 FH SLQ with full details. (Photo of 1930 SLQ courtesy of Heritage Auctions) You can clearly see the difference in strike quality between the two coins. The 1930-S shows incomplete shield details including missing rivets, weak lettering, weak chainmail armor detail, blending of the robe details, and mushy stars. The 1930 is complete and strong in every aspect. Notice that even the details within the head are stronger on the 1930. The sprigs, hairline, and earhole are much better defined. When collecting coin series with strike designations, it is extremely important to evaluate the entire strike of the coin, not just the area defined as a problem by the TPG. I would have a hard time paying a premium for a strike designation that does not correlate to a strong strike. I imagine that many other collectors feel the same way. Collecting coins with strike designations without full details is a sure fire way to lose money when it comes time to sell.
Paul These are fine examples -- I know Bowers talks about this at length in one of his books. The SLQ with full head and not all the rivets on the shield is the example he uses. Strike designations have always scared me away from series because I don't like to see such emphasis on a single location. There certainly could be for Walkers, the right (facing) hand on the obverse or full head, for instance. These are locations to pay a lot of attention to but I'm glad the series I collect aren't bifurcated by strike designation. It's also interesting that most strike designations (FS, FB, FBL) are on the reverse, the side of the coin that generally takes a back seat.
You are correct, Bowers discusses the full details concept instead of strike designations in THE EXPERT'S GUIDE TO COLLECTING & INVESTING IN RARE COINS. He also provides a four step list when buying a coin: 1) Observe the numerical grade on the holder 2) Gauge eye appeal at first glance 3) Evaluate sharpness and related features, seek full details on coins 4) Establish a fair market price It seems based on this list that he ranks the elements of coin grading in order of importance like this: 1) Surface preservation 2) Eye appeal 3) Luster 4) Strike
Great thread, Lehigh96. Once again you brought up an important aspect of coin collecting that will result in more of us choosing better quality coins instead of labels. Bruce
Excellent illustration Lehigh96. Very informative and excellent for those who still have not learned on what to look for when buying a coin (in hand). When I buy coins for my personal collection, I always look at every detail, specially when buying my little Roosies. I've always noticed this weaknesses with Jeffersons and Roosevelts and are the coins I closely inspect the most when buying for me. I'll be sure to save this info for future studies. Love the pictures! :thumb:
Great examples and great post. Although these are two series' I don't normally buy, this serves as a good refresher and visual example. These are two of the most prominent yet overlooked coins to consider full details on. I think many people go many years without realizing how good a coin's details CAN be. So they never really know what's good or bad when they look at something. To any beginners reading this thread, here's where you separate the men from the boys. (Hey, it just sounded good! lol) This is what it eventually comes to. Analyzing, recognizing, and paying for the minute details that can be found on the higher quality, lesser seen examples. This is where it becomes more of a science than a casual glance and a feeling that it "looks like a great coin to me". There's big differences across all series' out there. For whatever you collect, take time to see what the highest quality examples actually look like. What the coins *can* be! Even if you don't intend to buy them and may never be able to afford them. You almost need this as a barometer for judging the variable quality of everything else you will look at and potentially pay for. Then you're going to know when somebody's trying to blow smoke.......
Great post Lehigh! Any idea on why this occurs? I know on the Morgan dollar series sometime you see great detail in the high points (Hair above the ear, and Eagle's breast) but weak detail on the outer areas of the coin (Stars on obv, and Lettering on the rev), this is usually the result of excess strike pressure. I don't think that's the case with the coins you've posted though. I've also seen a few Morgans with great strikes, but one of the Eagle's wings, usually the right wing (as viewed), is weakly struck. Not exactly sure what caused that though.
Thanks Lehigh96! Very educational and informative! The subject coins are over 60 years old. It prompted me to ask this: Is strike a concern in more modern coins? That is, has the Mint produced better quality coins as regards strike?
With the exception of the State Quarters and Presidential Dollars, I don't collect modern (1964-present) coins. However, I believe that strike is much less of an issue on modern coins due to technological improvements in the minting process and lower reliefs on the coin designs themselves.
Geeez Paul - so you do pay attention once in a while after all I can remember having this discussion about well struck Jeffs on the NGC forum, must be 8 or 9 years ago now, and having some of the so called "experts" of the time telling me I was crazy Of course once I explained things, they began to see the light. Then they wanted to know how I knew all this when they didn't. I then told them that I didn't really know anything, I just made it all up :whistle:
Doug, I was waiting for you to show up. Although Bowers was given some credit early in the thread, the inspiration for this thread was provided by you. I recall you disseminating this exact message at least 5 times over the last 2 years on this forum. All I did was take it to the next level and add photographs. I think the use of quality photographs enhances the educational value of information exponentially. FWIW, I think your message has sunk into the mainstream. In my experience, most advanced collectors follow this philosophy strictly. They leave the strike designated coins without full details to the registry collectors who are more interested in the plastic than the coin itself. I credit you with much of my numismatic advancement since joining Cointalk. When I first got here, I only cared about toning. I gave very little credence to the grade of the coin or the strike. I didn't take long for you to convince me that I was making a huge mistake by ignoring certain elements of the grading process. Having said that, I still think that strike is the least important aspect of grading. Thanks for sharing your never ending fountain of knowledge with us. I know I have benefited greatly from it.:thumb: Paul
Awesome post Paul! and as always the pictures are nothing short of phenomenal! So much so that it made me question something. The coins that you used to illustrate this point about full strike made me look more closely at them. While the difference is stark on both sets of coins, the 30-S Standing Lib made me look really really close at the head detail and I am not convinced that it is indeed a full head. IIRC on a type II standing lib, the detail must include the ear hole, and I just don't see it. The 30 plain is clear as a bell, but I just don't see it on the S mint and if it's not a FH coin, then your point is kind of lost for that coin. Let me make this clear, I think that Lehigh makes a fabulous point and illustrates it wonderfully, I was wondering if the TPG gave a strike designation where it was not warranted.
The earhole is very difficult to capture in a photograph because it is very weak. And although I can see the TPG not awarding this coin the FH designation if resubmitted, it is currently in a FH holder. As I alluded to earlier in the thread, when I bought this coin, I did not follow the advice that I am now offering. I bought this coin for the toning in spite of the apparent strike weakness, inadequacy of the FH designation, and that it is low end for the assigned grade. Despite the full head merit of the coin presented, if you search most full head designated SLQ's, you will find that most have strike weakness in other areas of the coin.
agreed as any Standing Liberty quarter with a razor sharp strike, especially a branch mint coin, is quite a rare find
