Featured Peace Dollars (Is strike an element of grade?)

I say they got:

1- MS64
2- MS64
3- MS65 (your pic)
4- MS65 (your pic)
5- MS66


All I know is the last one's got to be a 66 or 67. The rest were best guesses.

FWIW, it would make it more complicated but maybe at some point in the future, the grading system will branch out and we'll have a separate grading system for Peace Dollars and other coins that deal with weak strikes?

I know what you're saying. At this level, gem Peace Dollars can vary widely. You wouldn't buy one sight unseen for sure. Maybe they need a FS Full Strike NS Normal Strike, or WS weak strike designation? That way people wouldn't pay as much for a MS65 WS as they would a MS65 FS. Most would get the NS and there would be some gray area but you know the majority of FS and WS would be separated. I suggest this method only for coins that had known problems with strikes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think GD has an excellent point. An extreme example would be with Morgan Dollars. It would be like comparing a 1881-S with an 1892-O. Strike quality would be a much more important factor with the 1881 because they are almost always very nicely struck. If the coin had a bad strike, IMHO it would hurt the grade a lot. But, with the 1892-O...the strike is typically poor and that is considered "normal." A unusually well struck example would probably gain a point or 2 but I wouldn't expect a typically poorly struck example to really have it's grade hurt much by the strike.

 

The problem with this is that the guildlines in the ANA manual pretty clear define the grades by wear and hit marks..at least until you reach them MS65 level. I doubt anyone thinks the TPGers ignor strike, but the emphasis seems to be clearly on marks.

I'd think this is not really a fair way to judge a coin. the first thing they should do is judge the strike, which might be 50% of the grade, and then work from there. The first thing they seem to do is go hunting for hits.

In other words, often you read XYZ coin is a slabbed PCGS 65 with an excellent strike for this grade and variety... That shouldn't be. The excellent strike should be in the grade. A coin with a MS66 and a weak strike should not have a grade higher than a coin with an MS64 and an excellent strike but 2 more hit marks.


Ruben

 

So, do you feel that all the coins in a series should be held to the same level? How do you set the standard for the series for strike quality. Do you go with the best struck in the series (ex: 1881-S Morgan) or the worst (ex: 1892-O Morgan) or somewhere in between. Then, do you just no have 1892-O's graded very high because across the board the strike is so poor?

I disagree with this thought. MS means "mint state" and it's just that...the state the coin was in when it came from the mint. For coin's that came from the mint with terrible strikes, that's MS. Now, I think the highest grade values (67+) needed to have a decent strike (and for that reason there are many more 1881-S MS67+ coins than 1892-Os)...but I feel that strike is the least important category when it comes to MS coins.

 

The MS designation is not in question. What is in question is how strike is evaluated in the grade of a coin. As I said earlier, the strike has to be understood within the context of the mint and year, but in all years and mints, better strikes need to have more respect in the grade. If fact, a strong strike of a weak variety should be even greater appreciated, not less so. It is market grading?

Ruben

 

My view has always been that it's the upper MS grades that really become strike dependent. Below that, it doesn't IMHO because that's how the coin came from the mint. However, once you reach those upper grades where the condition of the coin is so similar, the nicer struck examples will begin to be more important.

But, this argument comes back to the fact that no two coins at the same grade are equal and because of that the value's aren't equal. Here's an example. If you took two MS66 1892-O Morgan Dollar's...they are both equally worn and have the same amount of marks. The grade is primarily a representation of the condition of the coin based on how it was handled. Because of their condition, the coin's have the same grade. But, what if one of them is a nice strike and the other is an average for the date. They may grade the same but they certainly have a different value.

I think too many people consider the numerical grade and the value to be absolutely connected...they aren't because of other factors. One of these factors is strike quality (another could be toning). Think about this, you have a "normal" strike 1892-O Morgan graded MS65. The second 1892-O is a very nice strike (superb for the date) but is too marked up to grade MS65. It's probably a true MS63 but because of the strike might market grade to MS64. What coin is more desirable? To me, it's the lower grade coin...it's probably more valuable too.

I personally feel that strike is the least important (by far) when it comes to the numerical grade of a coin. However, the individual characteristics of the coin may merit it being worth more or less than the "typical" price for the grade. When you reach those very high MS grades, I think strike becomes a lot more important. But, that's just my opinion.

I look at strike like I look at toning. It really doesn't raise the technical grade (usually), but it could make a significant difference in the price of the coin (either up or down).

I feel that unless the coin is a very highly graded example (MS67+), then no...they don't deserve to be greater appreciated in the numerical grade IMHO. However, they will command a premium in value (and depending on the coin, it may be a very large premium).

 

"A coin which is MS-65 from a technical or numerical viewpoint but which is lightly struck can be described as MS-64, MS-63, or some lower grade, without mentioning the weakness; this is the practice of most third-party grading services at present. A weakly struck coin cannot be graded MS-65 or finer. To qualify as MS-65 a coin must have a fairly sharp strike (but not necessarily a completely full strike)."

ANA Grading Standards, 6th Edition, page 21

 

I have always interpreted that means a "fairly shape strike" for the date. So, as an example, an 1892-O at MS66 would have a much weaker strike than an 1881-S even though the grades would be technically the same.

 

Pauls threads, ( Lehighs) tend to get lengthy, so I shoot from the hip and read after. Pic, opinion, than a read.

I cannot grade ANY coin a gem if weakly struck. ANY.


If weak stikes could " gem out ", the 26-S gem red would no be so lonely. Regardless of eye appeal and contact marks.

EVERY book and grading system I have ever heard of, a gem MUST be fully struck. Thats why they are rare folks. Thats why the grade " choice" was invented.

 

To me strike matters but varies from series to series , Take the Peace dollar , normally the design is weak so I'd place a higher premium on a well struck Peace dollar , same with Standing Liberty Quarters most come with weak strikes so a well struck full head full shield coin will bring a larger premium , series like the Morgan dollar are typicley pretty well struck so a well struck coin won't bring as high a premium , but a very poorly stuck coin will definately be worth less .
rzage

 

Yeah - that is fundementally wrong on the part of the grading system and FWIW, as a fact strike should coming into play on MS coins according to the current ANA grading standard at MS64.

Ruben

 

Do you hold all Lincoln's to the same standard when comparing strikes to grades? What I mean is, do you hold the 1919 and a 1926-S Lincoln's to the same strike standards to be a gem?

 

But they don't specify if the "sharp strike" is for the date or for the series. I tend to believe that it is for the date. So, a "sharp strike" for one year may be MUCH weaker than it is for another. They also say that it doesn't have a complete full strike, just fairly sharp. But, as an example for Morgan's...a "fairly sharp strike" is much different on an 1881-S and a 1892-O.

 

On uncirculated coins I do... I wil not grade a MS-65 if weakly struck. Circ's? A different story, I'll take strike into factor.

There is no fully struck requirement for a VF-35, although I'll tend to net a grade if the strike is poor, even horrible. You cannot sell me an VF 24-D if there are no wheats left. I wont grade a 1917 XF if not a sharp coin.

Mid 20's circs? , I'll work with you. To call any coin GEM, it must be fully struck, thats what makes those 50 P mints so tough, and those 20's branch mints so elusive.

There are no GEM circ grades. Gem in my world means red and uncirculated.

 

Page 25 of the ANA grading standard, not that I agree with it:

MS 64 - Has at least average luster and strike for the type

MS 65 - Shows an attractive high luster and strike for the date and mint

MS 66 - Has above average quality of suface and mint luster..

MS 67 - Has original luster and normal strike for date and mint

MS 68 - Has attractive sharp strike and full original luster for the date and mint

MS 69 - Has attractive sharp strike and full original luster of the highest quality for the date

MS - 70 Has a very attractive sharp strike and original lust.

So from MS 64 and UP the strike is a consideration of the grade according to the ANA.

Now, that being establish and dismissed as a point of contention, I think it is flawed. In fact within the summary of each grade they include Contact Marks, Hairlines, Luster, and Eye Appeal. And that is the core of the problem. They admit to not putting direct emphasis on strike, but strike is the single most important aspect of the coin.

Now if you want to argue that the mint and date need to be considered when discussing strike, nobody disagrees and frankly I'm not in the mood to argue a point that we agree on. Since this is a market grading system, it makes perfect sense that the market for a coin of a specific condition should be reflective of the rarity of higher strikes. That is accepted and not in disputer. But if you find a rare O Morgan with sharp Breast lines, and they do exist









They should never be graded below other examples even if they have more than a few visible hits.

Ruben

 

I pretty much agree with the ANA list you have there and I have read that in the book. The key in my eyes is that for all those grade levels (with the exception of 64 for some reason)...the strike quality is for the date and mint. They even say for MS67 it is a "normal strike" for the date and mint. With some coins, a "normal" strike is pretty weak. I would probably be stricter than that with some of those coins and limit a "normal strike" example of a known weakly struck coin (ex: 1892-O Morgan) to MS66 and no higher. It's not until MS68 does the grade require an "attractive" strike.

But, an MS67 1881-S can have a MUCH different strike than an 1892-O because of what is considered "normal" for those coins.

So, I pretty much agree with the ANA's standards. I might in some instances think they are even a little too loose when it comes to some coins. But, overall...I agree with them.

It's true that O struck Morgan's are known for weak strikes...but for all of them there are some nice struck examples out there, but they are just uncommon. I use the 1892-O as my example because it is the worst of the worst. It's the Morgan Dollar equivalent of a 1926-S Lincoln Cent.

 

But that is exactly my point. We know they make allowances for strike based on the the mint and the year, but should they? Why should an MS65 from 1922-P have different grading standards than a "D" or "S" mint coin. If the TPG's applied the same standard for each, the populations and prices would change drastically, but your coins from different dates and mints of the same grade would look very similar. Many collectors covet a well matched set of equally graded coins. This is almost impossible to achieve when different standards are applied.

I guess I was guilty of grading like the TPG's. The 22-D is fully struck because that is about as fully struck as one can find a 22-D. Please don't post a better struck 1922-D, I know you can find one. Just making a point. But neither coin can be described as weakly struck, especially by Peace Dollar standards.

I actually agree with making allowances for luster because different mints and years can produce different types of luster which can drastically change the appearance of the coin.

I will say that this is the discussion that I was searching for when I created the thread. Hey Doug, no guess from you on the grade. I promise not to send you the coin if you are right.

 

Even the ANA doesn't hold all coins in the same series to the same strike standards. Look at the excerpt that Ruben posted, all those grades have strike characteristics related to "the date and mint." I don't think you can fairly say that a the Peace Dollar must have a certain strength of strike to qualify for an MS65 or MS66 or so on. You can say that a 1922-P Peace Dollar does, but I don't think you can hold the whole series to the same standard.