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

That's what I think, some coins do come better struck than others, look at T1 SLQs, a well struck 1917-P is nothing special, yet that average coin is struck better than I would think ANY 1916 is.

We've had discussions about this before, some coins come well struck, others do not so I think that grade should take into consideration strike quality for the issue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

But they don't. The ANA factors in the strike of the coin...your own quotes from the ANA guide shows that. They require various strike quality depending on the year and mint to make a certain grade once you reach MS64.

 

Wow, I think I really explained my point about luster badly. What I meant was that you can have an MS67 Morgan Dollar with frosty luster or one with semi-prooflike surfaces and both are acceptable even though they are different. With strike, the design is the same. If a particular mint decided to reduce striking pressure in order to prolong die life, that should not entitle those coins to an artificially higher grade that dismisses the weak strike. I believe it should be just the opposite. The well struck examples from that mint with should be the only ones with the shot at gem status which would make them more rare and valuable.

Just because the TPG's make allowances for strike or luster based on different minting conditions, does not mean they should. It is a matter of opinion. I think that if they did not make these allowances, collectors would understand the grading practices more and it would give their grades more validity and credibility. Otherwise, they should provide a written document with each graded coin that explains the grade and the allowances made. Now we know that is ridiculous and never going to happen. I say, forget how the coin was made, and simply grade the result. If it is poorly struck, MS64 or below.

This may surprise most here, but I actually despise when the TPG's bump coins based on eye appeal for superb toning. I understand that they are trying to market grade the coin to a certain dollar amount, but that amount is never the actual market price of the coin anyway, so the bump in grade is meaningless. Of course there are exceptions, but it makes no difference to me if the rainbow toned common date Morgan Dollar is MS63 or MS64, I am going to pay the same price.

 

But they are more valuable...much more so. It's just like toning. Does toning raise the grade of a coin? Absolutely not, I know some TPGs do bump them...but the toning doesn't really raise the grade. A well struck example of a coin...especially a coin from a known weakly struck mint raises the value of the coin tremendously...just like attractive toning does.

I fully agree with the ANA about strike. The coin's strike should be evaluated based on what is normal for that mint and date. As the MS grade gets higher, the strike does need to be better. "Mint state" means the state the coin came in from the mint. It's an evaluation primarily of the coin's condition and preservation...not the quality of it's manufacture. If it came from the mint with a poor strike, that's MS for that coin. Will a nicer struck example be worth more? Yes, of course.

I guess my big question is, what do you think the strike standard to for a series should be? Do you find the best struck year of a series (for Morgan's: 1880-S or 1881-S) and hold the whole series to that level? Do you find an intermediately struck mint and date and say that is the "normal" strike for the series? Or what? These coins were minted for a long time under very different circumstances. You really can't hold them all to the same standard. A knowledgeable collector will know what years have good strikes or poor strikes and can judge the coin accordingly. But, in my opinion, the strike of a coin doesn't play a large part in the technical grade...although for upper MS coins, it does have some say.

 

I have to disagree. I do not see huge premiums paid for well struck coins like I see with toned coins. The second coin in this thread is graded as high as they go. Another coin with the same grade might draw a small premium, but we are not talking multiples here. If a well struck example realized more than a 10% premium over this coin, I would be surprised.

I understand that strike is not an aspect of technical grading and I don't dispute or have a problem with that. However, the TPG's don't use technical grading, they use market grading for which they admit that strike is an element. I will list PCGS's published standards for the assigned grades from THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION.

MS60-63-------STRIKE MAY NOT BE FULL
MS64----------STRIKE SHOULD BE AVERAGE OR ABOVE
MS65----------ABOVE AVERAGE STRIKE
MS66----------GOOD STRIKE
MS67----------VERY WELL STRUCK
MS68----------SLIGHTEST WEAKNESS OF STRIKE ALLOWED
MS69----------NEAR FULL STRIKE NECESSARY
MS70----------FULL STRIKE

How would you classify the strike on coin #2. I would certainly classify it as below average which would place the coin in the MS63 range. However, by all other factors the coin is an MS67. So they market graded the coin by bumping the grade. And no, they didn't bump it to MS65 or 66, they said hell with the strike, this coin is an MS67.

My problem with that is simple, they would never allow a Peace Dollar with a large mark on the surface to grade as an MS67 even if the mark was hidden in a non focal area and the strike, luster, and eye appeal were at the MS67 level.

I am of the opinion that coins should have grade limiting strikes just like they have grade limiting marks. Don't get me wrong, it is a pretty coin, but it ain't an MS67 no matter what NGC says.

 

With that PCGS table, I'm sure by "good strike" and "very well struck" they are referring to the date and the mint...not the series as a whole. If that was the case, some mints would never have produced coins that high.

I also disagree when you say that well struck examples only add a 10% premium. Look at FH SLQs and FS Jefferson nickels. These are nice struck examples that can have a very large premium over their more "normal" struck counterparts. If you find a slabbed 1892-O Morgan with a really nice strike (like the strike we expect from the 1881-S), it will have a substantial premium because the supply is so low.

 

if you want to know how TPG grade i have a new class called beat the TPG in their grading game

the course covers
how to get coins upgraded
how to get body bags slabbed
how to get au coins in ms slabs
special emphasis on ngc and pcgs
and how to make market ripping i mean market grading work for you

maybe you can sign up

 

much worse:whistle:

 

After each description of the ANA standard they create a small summation of the qualities that describe the grade in short hand. There they leave off strike.

Ruben

 

That is too lenient in my opinion. Everything above a 64 should be a a near full strike, IMO, as the master die or engraver was designed to produce for a business strike.

Ruben

 

1 ms63
2 ms63 your pic.
3 ms64
4 ms65
5 ms65

 

Doug:

This is very well said. I honestly think that this is the crux of what most of us have said all along. Maybe not put quite so well, or so succinctly, but I think this is basically what we all have tried to say.

It is the presence of so many quasi-standards that make for all of the confusion. I am not completely unsure that this confusion is not welcomed by the TPGs, though. It drives their business and they have a vested interest not to help clear the air.(I think it is nothing short of a grass roots movement that will eventually change things. It will be collectors like us in groups finally hammering out what we consider to be a clear, usable and coherent standard for grading coins.

We need to have the discussions, and we need to have the arguments in order to think things through. My objection comes when people say "those are the standards, and that's that!" Stifling the discussion will never yield anything productive.

 

Fair enough. But then explain why good strikes consistently fetch higher prices for the same grade and how that can be justified in a system that is market grading? How can the market constantly do something which is ignored in the market grade?

Ruben

 

Ok - lets try it this way. I agree with what you said, however, as is often the case, when you have two coins both graded MS64 and one has a sharp strike and goes on Heritage for $500 more than another with a weak strike, then, IMO, that is sufficient to be called "ignoring strike", and it is a common ocurance. They need to emphasis strike more to reflect the market grade consensus accurately. And the consensus is not group think that everyone agrees XYZ and ABC coin is a 64, but the consensus where coin XYZ constantly gets $500 more in the open market because it has an excellent strike.

Ruben

 

I started thinking about this post way back when you made this statement. First reaction for a collector of my inexperience is to say why? Why not compare Morgan Apples to Morgan Oranges because there could be a standard developed for a series and have all of the mints measured against that standard.?. If the Denver mint cannot strike a coin as hard as Philly - Denver coins just will not grade as high when it comes to strike/luster. What is so wrong with that? :goofer: I know, I know - all those collectors that want to put together a MS68 set would be mad if no MS68 coins came out of Denver. I think in the long run that compromises the system. Just a thought.

This would be a really nice addition to the red book!
24P "Strike Average = 9"
22D "Strike Average = 6"
25P "Strike Average = 10"

This would avoid the issue I see with the bold-ed quotes below. What's in bold below is part of the problem as I see it! In order to educate collectors the collectors need to understand all of the criteria used. If I knew a Jefferson 43D are known for being struck well I would never have bought a weak strike example even in MS state. I am very guilty of those statements but only because I am not educated enough.

I guess my question is are there any books that list strike quality by coin/mint/date? If not - there really should be... I'd go out and buy it tomorrow!

Where are the assigned grades - enquiring minds want to know

Good thread but just leaves me feeling like there should be a better system. As Doug pointed out - many are against that and I would bet much of that is for purely self serving reasons. Again - in the long run probably a bad thing for the hobby! Thanks to everyone that has posted for the well worded and thoughtful comments regardless of your position!

 

Now I'm still trying to form an opinion on this issue of strike, so, please don't try to corner me on that. But, just wondering, did you guys think of this? The technical grade of a coin is at its highest the moment the coin is struck, and can only go downhill from there, while, the market grade can actually improve over time, due to prevailing market conditions (principally, "eye-appealing" toning). I guess I just find that rather fascinating...I mean, from a "grading" standpoint.