What You Need To Know about: Strike

Thanks, Doug. I think I forgot to change the links when I posted this article here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Just saw one of Pauls exemplary threads discussing strike and the TPG's, so I figured I would link to it here: http://www.cointalk.com/t45572/

Anyone interested in strike should read this thread. Its sorta long, but take a half hour and really read it.

 

A striking article, to be sure.

I hate "mushy" coins, so strike is important to me but does not impact grade IMO.

 

Interesting, well written. Thank you. It would be interesting to hear your advice and take on weakly struck, early Lincoln cents. Since a lot of them were worn down and toned over decades ago, it would seem that it's harder telling wear from weak strikes.

 

One other thing I'll mention here about luster. I read your luster article and I understood luster to be the shinning effect caused by flow lines. When I look at a proof coin, sometimes it shines nicely and I've heard people say it has nice luster. Is this incorrect? I thought I read luster is not present on mirror proof coins and pl coins because flow lines have not really developed. So is luster also defined as shininess or light reflection in general? Kinda confused here. Lastly, if a coin has darkly toned or somewhat darkly toned, how do you distinguish luster? Can it be even seen at all if toning is black but no wear is there?

 

A question: I don't know much about old silver (or new for that matter) but I know a little about no motto gold, and especially type one double eagles. Many of the early type one $20's had very poor strikes, and many had planchet flaws. If there was, lets say, an absolutely just as it came from the mint 1850-O and it was a type 3 variety which has a poor strike on both sides, but no planchet flaws - what would the highest possible grade? I can imagine it might be worth a touch less than another hypothetical coin of the same year and mint that was a variety 3 which has much better strikes on both sides and is less common (if such a thing could exist in this hypothetical world), but if both were as perfect as they could possibly be, would they grade the same, or not? In other years, say for example 1853 - there is only one variety from the New Orleans mint - and it's strike is so-so. What would be the highest possible grade a perfect coin with the usual so-so quality strike be?

 

I guess our questions remain unanswered. Another one I have is, how significant is strike in circulated vs unc coins? The author makes general statements about strike affecting grades but I think this is more so for unc coins. I also want to mention I got confused at some parts where it seems like he's totally separating die wear and weak strikes, but don't they involve each other? In other words, doesn't a worn die obviously result in a weak strike? Confusing

 

Great article for the collector seeking the ultimate collector's coin with the very earliest die state strike from the very first pairing of working hubs and dies! I have given a great deal of thought to the details/design features of the Jefferson nickel, 33+ years but from what I have jotted down pales miserably to what I just read here.
I've been seeking a single word that describes the metal movement while stamping a coin blank. For example, a Jefferson nickel with an overall mushy strike, yet the steps are in full detail. Where the high points of a working hub get hammered out but yet the step area remains unaffected and eventually they will start to fill in with the metal that was meant for all those once sharp details; deep hairlines, top of windows, square top digits, and letters and so on. It's like, the step area in the die acts/functions as a reservoir to take up the metal that was meant for all those hammered-out details to prevent a die from cracking.
Words that I have used over the years to describe this effect; phenomenon, lopsided, displacement of, transference and the more comical terms, the boomerrang or the ballooning effect where as when one area of a coin deflates, an other will inflate.
Coin that have a poor, flawed, mushy strike yet have 5 to 6 steps, I have termed such coins as having compensated steps. Steps that had help forming due to the wearing down of other devices in the die.
Also, I believe, poorly struck coins tend to grade higher due to the higher compaction of the metal/planchet when the dies lack the details for the metal to flow into. The volume of the coin blank and the chamber remain the same for every strike of a coin so when the metal has no place to go, the blank is subjected to higher coining pressure resulting in higher compaction. The metal doesn't simply vanish as the details slowly fade during the life of a die. This higher compaction makes/increases the hardness of the surfaces of the coin preventing the coin from getting easily nicked up by other coins. Also a reason for reducing the coining pressure to strike the remaining production of coins, is to safeguard the dies from cracking.
Also, the lack of higher points/sharp details on a coin are not there to receive/take on a nick/hit from another coin in a coin hopper. The surfaces on a flawed strike are smoother, compacted, and tend to grade higher more consistently than a coin with a VEDS strike.
A coin with complete details on both sides is a far more desirable coin than a flawed coin with compensated steps.
edited

Leo

 

Fellow collectors:

That was a brief example of AI that will be used in the future, to "educate" numismatic (and any other hoarding pursuit) collectors.

 

?