Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;TypeCoin971793, post: 4611384, member: 78244&quot;]I’m referring to the difference between wear and weak strike. A lack of detail solely due to a weak strike will not have any luster breaks, regardless of how weakly it is struck. A circulated coin may have more details, but it will have broken, significantly less, Or even no luster at all.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some examples.</p><p><br /></p><p>1803 C-3 Half cent, one of the weakest-stuck varieties of the type.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1142066[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>In contrast, the 1804 C-12 is one of the best-struck of the type.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1142067[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>And here is another 1804 C-12. It’s level of detail is rivaling that of the 1803, but it is hardly in the same league grade-wise. There is virtually no luster left in this XF coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1142072[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>More dramatic examples can be seen in the buffalo nickel series. The 1926 D is notorious as one of the worst-struck of the series. Some examples have nearly all minor details missing. (Both of these are UNC)</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1142069[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1142070[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>By contrast, the 1937 is one of the best-struck.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1142071[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>This VF-20 rivals the detail of the second MS-62 1926 D above, but to say they Should be equivalent based on detail alone is a ludicrous statement.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1142073[/ATTACH][/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