Grading a weak strike.

Dont confuse weak strikes with worn dies either, there is a big difference

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Weak strikes generally occur when the dies are positioned too far apart. In days of old, the mint would do this to prolong the lifetime of the dies. Generally, the high points of the devices would be weakened through this, and can be diagnosed by such device markers.

If I am not mistaken, a worn die, on the other hand, will have the apparent weakness in varied areas of the devices included the lower areas. I would state that an apparent weak strike with the weaknesses in the lower device areas as opposed to the higher areas (where wear would first most likely be apparent as well) would be attributed to die wear, assuming that there is no actual wear on the coin.

Attributing a worn die on a circulated piece would be much harder the more wear on the coin. However, with a weak strike, even with extensive wear, the weakness of the strike can sometimes still be determined with ease by those who have an expertise in that particular series.

Generally, weak strikes is my weak point. Although I know how to diagnose them and the general idea behind differentiating between them and die wear, I particularly don't care. That's not to say that I won't investigate a series and make an educated determination if the need ever arises. It's just not something that I am particular to and I spend my time on other "more important" things.

But, yes, everybody who is in the hobby should have a general knowledge of those two factors.

 

That's funny! After replying to AJ's last comment, I just realized this thread is supposed to be about grading weak strikes. :hammer:

Never would have guessed it. I think I'm having a Hobo moment and need some sleep here.

 

LOL
A hobo moment

 

Actually, the only grades I knew were Poor, Fair, About Good, Good, Very Good, Fine, Extra Fine, About Uncirculated, Uncirculated, Brilliant Uncirculated and Gem BU at the top. Oh yes, and Proof. There were no MS designations to confuse the issue.

 

Aweak strike is a loss of detail , does it really matter if it's from worn dies , not enough pressure , etc. it's still a weak strike .
rzage

 

Here we go again.

 

yep---
You can lead a horse to water.....but you can't make him drink.

In a way it's fun!! While some people would rather talk about the next state quarter, we talk about things that really matter to the hobby.

Speedy

 

Just asking a question .
rzage

 

And it is a question that needs an answer.

It's kindof like the Market Grading question....people disagree on it and I would bet that there is at least one person from each side here on CT

Speedy

 

Thanks , I guess it's all in how you look at it .:smile
rzage:smile:hatch::hammer:

 

Never really looked at it like that , thats why I love this site all the different views and knowledge , thanks again Doug .
rzage

 

There are many dates in the buffalo nickel series that are notorious for weak strikes. I have a handful of PCGS and NGC graded buffalos that are very weakly struck and came through at 63's and 64's. I normally like to find a nicely struck coin (or as Bone would say, "hammered") but sometimes you can get a better price on the weak strike.

 

When grading a coin, it is important to take into account the average strength of strike. For instance, there are several years of SLQs that have no rivet detail on even the best struck specimens -- from what I understand the hubs lost detail. Some would call a vitually perfect example of this coin, albeit weakly struck, no better than a 65 because of this lack of detail. TPGs don't follow this credo, and the ANA guides do -- from what I understand. I tend to agree with the TPGs take on it as it seems rather arbitrary to limit a grade of a coin due to a lack of hub detail.

There are many issues of large cents which suffer from the same problem, as well as most of the earlier type coins, not to mention the buff's as was pointed out above -- this is a classic problem in grading coins...Mike

 

Alot of dates of Walkers have weak strikes as well. And I think its only fair not to give a coin a low grade when all coins of that date/mint lack some detail due to a weak strike.

 

In some series there are dates that are well struck & some that are weekly struck , if a certain date is notoriuos for weak strkes a well struck example should get a bump in grade .
rzage:smile:hatch::hammer:

 

That's one way of looking at it. But then consider this. There are different ways of grading coins. Some people will start with market aware aspects, while others may start with technical aspects.

The idea of bumping up and down are market aware practices. Thus, if one utilizes market aspects first in determining their grade, then there will be likely more possibility for sporadic grades.

If you grade with technical aspects first, then the grades may very well be more uniform. What I'm talking about is this. First determine if a coin is circulated or uncirculated.

If the coin is circulated, then start at a base grade, say G-4, and determine if the coin fits into that grade. If the coin is worse than G-4, obviously move down to basal state and stick on the grade. Otherwise, head up the scale to determine where the coin would technically lay. After you determine the technical grade, then utilize market aware aspects to determine your overall market grade for the coin...but do not ever go over AU-58 (ie, do not bump it into uncirculated if it is NOT uncirculated, for ANY reason).

If the coin is uncirculated, then start at the top, MS-70. Move your way all the way to MS-60 to determine its technical grade. I personally do not believe that an uncirculated coin should be moved into a circulated grade due to damage, but should sit at MS-60 with damage described, as circulated and uncirculated describe the evidence of wear, not the condition of the coin.

I would take it as far as to say there are two entirely separate grading scales: 0 - 58, which describe the various conditions of circulated coins; and 60 - 70, which describe the various conditions of uncirculated coins. You cannot cross from one scale to the other. Of course, there are those who disagree completely, but that's their prerogative.

Anyway, once you determine the technical grade of the coin, market aware aspects are now considered...including strike. Now, let's say that you have five coins (same type, date, and mint mark), and for purposes of our example, we will say that all aspects are equal excepting strike. The technical grade we will use is MS-66. Now, let's assume that these coins are general found with a weak strike.

Now, let's remember that when determining strike, this is subject to the series, date, and mint in question. So, we would say that this particular specimen is "typically" weakly struck (ie. the average strike for this specimen is a weak strike). We will now refer to the grades in respect to market grading. An MS-64 would be considered to have "at least" an average strike. Thus, since the coins are all technically MS-66, the grade should not be dropped below MS-64 since, all things equal, the weak strike is considered to be "typical" or average for this specimen.

So, generally, the coins should all market grade from MS-64 to MS-66. Let's assume that 2 coins are weakly struck, average for the specimen in question, and nothing exceptional or even above average in regards to the strike. These coins should receive an MS-64 grade. Now, let's say that two of the coins have weak strikes, but are stronger than the typical coins we find for this specimen. These coins should receive a grade of MS-65 or MS-66. The one coin that we see with a normal, sharp strike, however, we would consider to exceed the technical grade, and would place as an MS-67 or even MS-68, although a coin from another series, date, or mint may not exceed MS-66 under similar strike.

That is because, even market grading, is subject to the series, date, and mint, and not subject to coins overall in general. Taking two coins that have generally the same strength of strike, but are two different denominations, two different date, and minted at two different mints, will not necessarily fall into the same grade ranges because of the way market grading takes into consideration of "typicals" within a specific specimen (type, date, mint).

Pretty much, in market grading, I would put it that each type, date, and mint combination are a fruit of its own. And in grading, you must compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. In technical grading, however, a fruit is a fruit, and the same rules will generally apply to all, whether it's an apple, an orange, or a banana. And since strike is a market aware aspect, "typical" is not the same from type to type, date to date, or mint to mint.

Of course, there are many who disagree with this, but that's the nature of grading. If it were not so, the TPGs would all be on the same wire, and there would be very little difference between them. And we would have a universal standard and system for grading. And threads like this would be much shorter, and people would have less opinion on the matter, because everything would be set in stone and all things would simply be objective fact.

Just more cud to chew on.

 

I should reiterate on my above post, as I am not trying to say that a grade would "get a bump" for being an exceptional or above average strike in a weak strike series. Rather I am trying to say that it only appears to be a bump in grade, while in fact, the grade is consistent with market grading standards, as the typical for the specimen is a weak strike. Therefore, what would be considered a normal strike to another series, is considered exceptional in the weakly struck series. Thus, it is not bumping, but rather proper market grading to put the specimen in the higher grade. A matter of perspective...much like the perspective on "changing" standards.

 

In my opinion, a coin should be judged against the intention of its designer. If worn dies or weak strikes produce an example that is missing something that the designer wanted to be there, then it should be reduced in grade accordingly. Even if the entire series exhibited that defect.