could some of you help me with picture examples (preferably a Morgan) of a weak strike like an '87 O vs an excellent strike? I'd like to see what others consider an weak vs excellent side by side. Thanks.
Here's a couple good link to read through. http://www.coingrading.com/strike1.html https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-truth-about-new-orleans-mint-morgan-dollars.56838/
Thanks for the links Ox, especially the 2nd one...I learn something new from the "masters" here on CT everyday.
I've seen UNC Morgans so weakly struck they had just over VF-looking details. You really need to check out the luster to distinguish a weakly-struck coin from an actually worn coin.
Yes luster can be a good indicator with coins of lower grades. XF coins often have some remaining luster, but coins graded lower than that rarely do, except maybe in a few protected areas. And you don't even find that very often. But with coins grading AU and up luster is not the answer to determining weak strike from wear. That is because weakly struck areas such as the high points on hair curls for example, have no luster. Similarly, areas with wear or even light wear also have no luster. So how do you reliably tell one from the other ? There is a way, but few employ it, choosing instead to automatically assume that a coin is weakly struck. This is a mistake of course for you can't just assume anything, especially not when it could just as easily be something entirely different. You need to know, not assume, in order to correctly grade a coin. The way, the method, to tell a weak strike from wear is more simple than most realize. And there are two separate determining factors. One is color. Weakly struck areas will be a darker shade of grey than adjoining areas that have luster. And areas that have wear will be an even slightly darker grey than that. To correctly recognize these color differences when you see them requires a certain level of experience. The second determining factor to tell weak strike from wear on a given area of a coin is texture, and this is much easier to see, provided you look for it. Magnification is usually needed to see it. A weakly struck are will have a texture to it, it will be slightly rough, you might even describe it as slightly bumpy when viewed with magnification. But an area with wear, even slight wear, will have no texture. It will be smooth and sometimes even flat. This because it is the nature of wear to flatten out a surface and remove any texture. Luster after all is itself in fact a form of texture. And it is the lack of this texture that makes breaks in luster so easy to see. So when presented with the question, is it wear or is it weak strike, that's how you answer the question for yourself, definitively. Even if that answer is contradictory to the opinion of others. This method removes all assumption.
