Having a difficult time differentiating between normal wear and a weak strike. Any suggestions or advice on how to tell the difference? Thanks. Rodger
Look at the high points under good light. If there is luster on the high points just like the rest of the coin it is just a weak strike. If the high points are somewhat more dull then it is wear. Morgan's are also very well documented as to which dates are more common for weak strikes. But, those aren't absolutes...just trends.
Good advice. Knowing which dates are known to be weakly struck helps somewhat, but you can't base your decision on that alone.
Exactly, one example is the New Orleans mint. People tend to think that all O mint Morgan's are poorly struck...it's not true. Some dates are known to typically be poorly struck (1892-O is probably the most consistently flat struck date) but 1879-O is actually a well struck date usually. Here is a post I wrote a while back on O mint Morgan's specifically: http://www.cointalk.com/t56838/
Look at the rims. Coins with wear almost always show some on the rims. A weakly struck Morgan will have strong rims without wear. A worn coin will show wear on the rims.
look at the cotton bolls on Liberty's head, on an unc Morgan, even a weak strike will have fairly sharp tits on the tops of the bolls. those and the tips of the wing feathers are high points and suffer early wear. likewise the high breast feathers on other than the sunken chested 1878 and 1921 eagles
Yes and no. Areas that are not fully struck up will not have the luster the rest of the coin does. And they will look very similar to what wear looks like. Wear and weakly struck areas will both show as a break in the luster. This, more than anything else is the sole reason for disagreements about the grade of a coin being either AU or MS. That said, weakly struck areas and areas with light wear can be differentiated from each other. But it is difficult. It can be so difficult in fact that the TPGs often resort to ignoring it on some series. They will instead sometimes require that a coin have visible wear in the fields before they call it AU. Personally, I strongly disagree with this policy. The difference between the two can be seen and they can be told apart. It's a matter of color more than anything else. But there can also be other clues to differentiate light wear from weakly struck areas. All it takes is a trained eye and a little knowledge. Pretty much everybody knows that wear on a coin shows up as a grey color as opposed to the more silvery color of an area with luster. Problem is, weakly struck areas are also a grey color. But they are different from each other in a subtle way. Wear will be a slightly darker shade of grey. And wear will also have very, very fine lines that cannot even be seen with the naked eye. Another way to think of it is texture. To the eye, wear will appear flatter and smoother. While a weakly struck area will have an almost uniformly course look to it. It's kind of hard to explain, but if you can imagine what the surface of a cameo looks like, grainy almost, that is what a weakly struck area will look like as well. It's kind of like a half luster, or a different kind of luster. And it doesn't show up the same because the flowing metal does not come into contact with the metal of the die. This is because as the metal is flowing into the recesses of the die to fill them it's bubbling up, kinda like how lava flows. Of course it's not as hot and liquid like lava, it's flowing because of great pressure instead of heat. So the surface will be ever so slightly uneven and somewhat course and grainy looking. Whereas wear will be flatter and smoother. Now as I said, the TPGs sometimes choose to ignore this difference and instead look for wear in the fields to confirm that it is indeed wear. But to me this is a cop-out. It's just an excuse because the two things can be told apart if you just have the guts to do so.
I look at the hair above the ear on Liberty and also the eagle's breast. The key is luster. If those areas show no break in luster and looks like the rest of the coin, then it's a weak strike. If a dull grey or general dullness is seen in those areas, different than the rest of the coin, then it's an AU.
Another complicating factor is that sometimes toning on the high points looks very simliar and can be found in addition to the weak strike/wear. So is that darker area toning, weak strike, and/or rub? Not easy to do from pics, and only marginally easier in-hand. In fact, I would put the ability to differentiate between them fairly high on the numismatic difficulty scale. So Rodger, don't despair, there are lots of folks in the same boat as you...Mike
Agree 100%, should have mentioned the toning issue as well. One additional thing to remember, unless the toning is quite thick or dark, the luster will show through. It won't with the other two.
Just want to thank everyone for the help. Sounds like a life long journey of learning. Good to hear the different points of view on grading. I really appreciate all of the input. Thanks everyone.
That's what makes this such a great site , a lot of people with tons of knowledge that are willing to share it , I've learned more in a year and a half here than my previous 50+ years of on and off collecting . Stick with it the knowledge will come if you do your part too . rzage
One last point. I have a couple of books on grading coins. I'm having a real time trying to see the difference between an MS60 and a MS61, MS61 and MS62 etc. Ok, maybe between an MS60 and MS63 I can tell a difference. But just can't tell the difference from one grade to the next, and I have some Morgan dollars that are slabbed and I can't tell the difference between an MS61 and MS62. It is just so subjective, that several people will come up with different grades. Guess it's just me.
Your right , they do have guidelines for the # of hits a coin can have and where for each grade , but it is very subjective , different years are graded differently because some years were weakly struck , key dates often get a point bump , toning and eye appeal can forgive a flaw . But the more coins you look at you will start to notice a difference , most of us are still learning . Hang in there you will get it if you want , just takes practice . rzage:hatch::hammer:
Contrary to what some may tell you, learning to grade accurately is not an easy task. It requires a great deal of time, experience and study. A large part of the reason that grading seems so subjective is because very, very few collectors & dealers out there are equal in regard to their knowledge and experience about grading. Some may have 10 years experience, some 20, some 40 or more. And each is usually better at one particular series than the others. Now given that, how could you possibly expect grading results to be anything but subjective ! However, you get 10 people together all of whom have an equal amount of knowledge and experience about grading a particular series, or several series - and you'll find out that pretty much all of that subjectivity flies out the window. Just like coins are not equal - well the people doing the grading are very seldom equal as well.
