Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 3653084, member: 112"]Yes the 1891 is known for being weakly struck, most of them are. But this specific example/coin serves a valuable purpose in that is shows, and plainly so, how to differentiate weak strike from wear as this coin shows both, and in a single picture. Though it can be seen in others as well. The pic I'm referring to is this one - <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/990daacc-fe57-4fdb-bfae-ee1364bf605f-jpeg.981185/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> The top leaf, lower right, shows a textbook example of what one sees when a weak strike has occurred - the texture, the rough, bumpy upper surface of the leaf. When you see detail lacking, but you see that texture at the same time, that tells you point blank that it is dues to a weak strike. And if you look at the hair over the ear on the obv, you'll see the texture there as well - again a clear indication of weak strike. But on the letters in the legend immediately above that leaf you see the lack of detail, the flatness of wear, and no texture. When it's wear, there will be no texture, no rough, bumpy surface. You'll see the same thing on the breast, the eagle's right wing tip. Clear and plain indications of wear. The texture is always the key when it comes to differentiating wear from a weak strike.[/QUOTE]