Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 344957, member: 112&quot;]Perhaps the best way to tell a weak strike from wear is color and light reflection. When a coin shows wear the color of the metal in the worn area is different than that of the metal in the areas with no wear. Wear is typically darker in color than a weakly struck area. Now partly that is due to luster being gone or broken in the areas with wear. And as a result of the luster being gone that area will reflect light quite differently.</p><p><br /></p><p>The same is true for a coin with a weak strike, the areas that do not strike up fully will not have luster either. However, those weakly struck areas, even though they don&#039;t have luster, will not be the same color as worn areas. The difference is subtle, but it is detectable to the experienced eye.</p><p><br /></p><p>Personally, I think far too many people tend to use a weak strike as an excuse to overgrade a coin. Now perhaps some are not aware that they are doing this because they can&#039;t tell the difference between the two things and that they have often heard others say that a given coin is weakly struck as an explanation for a lack of detail. But it is not always the case. Quite often the lack of detail is due to just plain old wear. I truly believe that the TPG&#039;s often make the same mistake.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yes, there are many coins that are known for being weakly struck. But there are many more that are not. And it is up to the collector to know which is which, for often you will see coins that are said to be weakly struck by the owner or seller when the entire mintage of that date/mint is typically found to be well struck. And if you do not know the difference, it is all too easy to be fooled by what seems to be a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation.[/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