Weak Mint Marks: Low Value Issues or Desirable Variety?
Winchester1873
Posts: 201 ✭✭✭✭
Experts like Doug Winter opine that collectors should avoid gold coins with weak mint marks, especially Dahlonega and Charlotte issues. The point is well taken, if you are paying a premium for a coin from the Branch Mints, you want to be able to see the D or C.
But, as I see it, these coins (just as strong or normal mint marks) were struck at the historic and interesting mints. Plus, I see adding these coins to a D or C Mint collection as a recognized variety necessary if completeness the goal, even though PCGS does not include them in the registry set like the famous D/D double strikes or small/large mint marks.
Pros or cons of collecting weak mint marks?? Anyone taking advantage of the ‘discounted’ premiums?
Photo is an 1851-D $5 Weak D graded by NGC as AU58.
Comments
Weak mint marks are a negative. I would avoid them.
I was told on this board years ago. You want a C or D or even CC mint coin. Why get a mint mark half there or so.
You are paying for the mint mark see it in all its glory.
You might save dollars buying it, but i bet you will not get out of the coin at sell time what you hope either.
I suspect I’m like many collectors of Indian quarter eagles: full set other than for the 1911-D. I’ll either break down at some point and buy a strong D — or accept the hole. The weak D still runs some money, and I would find it hard to be happy with one.
If one has to develop eye-strain to see a mintmark, maybe it's not worth it. (On the sample coin, the tilted "U" is more prominent than any mintmark. I'll take NGC's word for it being present.)
After studying the OP coin, I must admit, I cannot detect any sign of the D...I am not contesting it, just stating that I cannot see it... My position is, that I buy the coin... by that I mean, it's overall appeal...Normally, a weak mint mark would be in the negative column in my evaluation table. Years ago, there was a mint set (Denver) with an extremely weak 'D' on the cent... Weak or polished out, not sure I remember the details. I received one when I purchased the annual sets... naturally I was pleased, thinking it would become a notable collectible.... so far, it seems I cannot even get anyone to remember the issue now.
So goes coin collecting... one day a super item, the next, forgotten. Cheers, RickO
The story behind the 1851-D (Weak D) $5 is that the mint did not receive a new reverse die until late 1851. The reverse from 1850 was re-used, but was already becoming cracked and weak from the use in the prior year. In the photo below you can see the same die crack on the reverse of the 1850-D at the base of FIVE that becomes more pronounced in ‘51.
Looking at the 50D on Coinfacts it seems that on that one it is not a matter of whether the D is weak, but how weak. How weak will you accept and how weak before the TPGS's label it weak. Same for some other Southern Gold issues. Some search eBay for 1911 quarter eagles raw looking for the markers of a D without the D visible. Not as good as strong D, but better than a regular 1911. As with other coins it is up to you the collector what you are willing to accept.
If it can't be seen is it really there? (Yep. Other diagnostic marks can point to the same die, but the effect is kind of like dating your sister....)
So if it can be seen a little it is like dating your cousin? Maybe, but you make a good point.
Weak or missing mint marks almost always lower the value from what I have seen. This is especially true if the coin in question is rare or scarce.
There are several New Orleans quarters with very weak -- but readable - mintmarks, so the phenomenon is not unknown. As Bill noted, if both weak and normal MM are available, the market will decide which, if either, is worthy of the best value.
However, they are interesting conversation pieces, and could make an unusual Coin Club presentation.