1953-S Washington. Soft strike or Wear !? what say ye?

Hyperion

I got 2 coins today, a 53D and a 53S, they look ALOT different.

Is the 53 worn or just a soft strike? talk out your rationale. I reserve my opinion.

first, the obverses. S on the left, D on the right.



"S" reverse

"D" reverse

BECOKA

This series is incredibly tough to distinguish wear from soft strike even more so from a photo.

savoyspecial

i see full mint bloom so i'm voting weak strike

greg

Hyperion

I hear ya. the reverses were taken EXACTLY in same position/same light. In hand, they're as different as the images appear, to that degree. of course, I have the advantage of looking at them RL too..

TwoSides2aCoin

the '53 S is struck with worn dies, or weak die strike might be another name. TomB knows for sure.

ChangeInHistory

Weak strikes.

TomB

They appear to be both very nice, MS coins with typical strike characteristics on the 1953-S.

Hyperion

+1 one time, yo !

jabba

Looks like a die chip on the wreath on the 53S and weak lettering, Im going to say a worn out die.

clarkbar04

Notoriously weak struck UNCs!

Fairlaneman

Soft all the way.

Ken

Gemineye

I say it's a soft strike and you old classic silver guys should recognize this as compared to wear characteristics ....

docg

I agree with Tom B. The San Francisco mint struck quarters from 1950-1954 have a velvety soft strike on the reverse. In my opinion it is very attractive, but certainly much different from a "hammered" reverse strike.