Less than full strikes on Morgan dollars.
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
Serious question. A long time ago, I learned that a coin's strike was one of the factors considered in the grade. Back then, I observed that an Uncirculated dollar was limited to MS-64 if most of the hair over the ear was missing. Lately, it seems that is no longer the case. For example, if an "O" mint date usually comes without complete hair (or missing much of it) it seems they are being graded as MS-65 and above if their luster is exceptional and the coin is virtually mark free.*** I've posted a partial image of such a coin: Flat hair detail and virtually no marks in the image and the rest of the coin not shown. NOTE: For this discussion, PLEASE pretend the big one on the chin is not there as this is the only coin at hand.
***BTW, that's the way coins were graded in the old and OBSOLETE "Technical" grading system. Strike was only mentioned if it was either flat, weak, or exceptionally strong. Example using image: Gem Uncirculated, Weak Strike.
Have you observed this practice where the strength of the strike is less important than it once was? Are coins as this graded high (as they deserve) but bring lower money due to the missing detail? Strong strike still rules, right.
Anyway, will the experts here please educate me and others on the TPGS practices and the commercial coin market?
Comments
According to a 1900 examination of the New Orleans Mint, the most frequent cause of insufficient silver dollar detail was improper annealing of planchets, not pressure. Adding more pressure (by reducing the adjustment wedge depth) only caused dies to crack and fail earlier than expected.
It's my opinion that ms65 grades are warranted when coins from that date/mint are not fully stuck, details wise. New Orleans is the main culprit for these dollars as Roger said, planchet problems.
This does pose a problem when you find a fully stuck, details, coin and then what do you do? Maybe give it a plus?
bob
@AUandAG said: "It's my opinion that ms65 grades are warranted when coins from that date/mint are not fully stuck, details wise. New Orleans is the main culprit for these dollars as Roger said, planchet problems.
This does pose a problem when you find a fully stuck, details, coin and then what do you do? Maybe give it a plus?
EXACTLY!
I'm interested in how the TPGS grade these coins.
Yes, there is a significant difference.
I think some series are given more leway -- both in terms of grading and value -- with a weak strike than others. Some series are extremely difficult to found fully struck and in high condition..
But you're right, I don't see 64 as the upper limit for weakly struck coins in many (any?) series graded by TPGs these days, that's for sure.
Hits and luster play more of a role in TPG grading.
This has been a debate for as long as there were TPGs. The issue is whether you consider the grade to be simply a measure of degree of preservation.
Its called a bean Insider2 , and possibly some canjun visionary saw the future and made a slight change to the presses or maybe , just maybe, CAC sent an operative into 1879's New Orleans to adjust the machinery themselves.
Its my feeling that there are other among us even now , watching....................................
I think strike should be considered in grade.
Hmmm....most O mint Morgans without the full hair top out at 64 IMO. I have seen an occasional one in a 65 but because of the lack of detail I don't think they deserve that grade because it is a major distraction in a prime focal area. Just my opinion!
K
If the coin, fresh off the press, had a weak strike, you have to grade it knowing that. They are given forgiveness and It does not bother me. I agree with FTB above, in that order.
I agree.
Back in the 1970s, when I was a teenager, one of the many ways I paid for my collection was to go to local stores and shows, and look for weakly struck O mint Morgan Dollars that were graded as XF and then resell them to dealers at the proper grade. I might make a buck or 2 per coin, so not a lot of money but not hard to do back then.
So maybe I am a little biased but I think that a weak strike limits the grade on coins, especially common coins.
Interesting. It seems many collectors feel as I do about the coin's strike. A weakly struck coin should be confined to a grade of MS-64. Otherwise (AS IT IS NOW) there is no consistency. Try and teach that in a grading seminar! In order to grade a coin you'll need to know which dates are given the leeway and which are not.
Please read on:
@jmlanzaf said: "This has been a debate for as long as there were TPGs. The issue is whether you consider the grade to be simply a measure of degree of preservation."
Degree of Preservation = Old, obsolete, easy to learn, out-of-favor, "Technical" Grading System. As of the mid-1980's the "modern" TPGS claimed they put a VALUE on a coin. In the opinion of most I talk with, a fully struck coin is worth more than one that is not so fully struck. Therefore, a coin's strike affects its value - or it should.
What I have noticed is this may not be the case for some coins that are infrequently found fully struck. If strike is ignored, it seems we may be returning to a more "technical" interpretation of grading - condition of preservation from the time the coin left the dies.
@FadeToBlack said: "Luster, marks, eye appeal, strike is my order of importance. Incomplete strikes don't bother me too much."
While I agree with you, in the past, strike did matter to the TPGS's. Are we seeing an evolution similar to former AU's being graded MS?
@tyler267 said: "I think strike should be considered in grade."
I agree. That's why I started this discussion. I've seen 66+ coins with no hairlines as the image I posted. While the coins are "to-die-for" amazingly persevered, "knock-my-socks-off" beauties, IMO, they are graded too high - probably to reflect that *THING** that should have absolutely nothing to do with a coin's grade: Its VALUE.
@Wabbit2313 said: "If the coin, fresh off the press, had a weak strike, you have to grade it knowing that. They are given forgiveness and It does not bother me."
So you like the old, obsolete, and constantly trashed "technical" system? I wish I knew which dates are given leeway.
I wish I knew how much "value" to take away in each instance.
Perhaps the dumber folks can keep the average collector, the better. I appreciate your comments and hope to hear from some dealers or graders.
Design detail is a valuation parameter, but is not related to the degree of preservation (grade0 of a coin or medal.
??? When design detail is lost, the grade goes down! If it was never there when struck (whatever the reason) that's different. Nevertheless, it is still missing.
Technical: Gem Unc, MS-65, v. flat strike.
Commercial: MS-63+ or perhaps MS-64.
Now, without seeing the coin, what does it look like? What is it worth? LOL
I can describe what ANY coin of any date looks like by the technical grade above
without seeing it. Forgetabout the commercial graded coin. Too many variables INCLUDING its VALUE. 
Of course strike is a part of a coin’s grade and the weaker the strike, the more it affects the grade. Usually an obviously weak strike is limited to a 64+ but that doesn’t mean the coin needs to be hammered to get a 65. There are coins in all series in the highest grades that do not have complete detail. For example there are many 67s and 68s without the designation that denotes a full strike (or at least a certain part, such as FB, FBL, FH, etc). I have no problem with this.
The coin in the OP is a bit soft but I wouldn’t call it “weak”. If everything else with that coin was right - luster, lack of marks, I think it could garner a 66+.
There are plenty of non FB, non FL, non FS or non FH coins graded 65 or higher. Are those not indicators of a less than full strike?
Grade them without regard to strike and let the market decide.
Collector, occasional seller
Perhaps a second grade....like, W/str, M/str, F/str, E/str or EDS. But this would hamper submissions and the value, killing the market for labels. Best left alone and let the collectors of whatever decide what coin is best for their collections.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
This maybe wandering off topic....(But I will say, on topic, that I agree that strike isn't taken into account as much as it probably should be, or even as much as the TPG's claim it is.....)
But this discussion, and many like it, (number, type, and location of marks...color of toning....strength of luster....take your pick), are why I don't REALLY care if I'm an "Ace, top tier, coin grader".
I know enough about how the TPG's grade to be in the ball park. Enough to know that 63 isn't a 65, and that wear mean's it's not really MS. Enough to know when a coin got a "color bump", or when the luster seems to have made them ignore the marks.....
But when I finally pull out my wallet, I pick the coin I want, with the attributes that are important to me! "You can call that one an MS-65 if you want....but I'm not paying 65 money for it." I'll take this one over here with attributes that appeal to me! Maybe it's also listed as a 65, but maybe it says 64 on the holder. Maybe it's marked down 66 that everyone else hates. Whatever.
Not all coins within a grade are equal!
>
I don't disagree. But the fact that value is affected doesn't necessarily affect the grade.
You may be less aware of the world coin market, but look at the PCGS and NGC grades for hammered coins. You see some coins with tremendously weak strikes getting 65 grades. And I mean WEAK - as in design elements not even visible in some cases.
Look at this coin - and look at the adjustment marks as well:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/sicily/world-coins-italian-states/italy-sicily-carlo-iii-gold-oncia-1737-ms65-ngc-/a/3040-30179.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
Look how soft the lettering is on this coin:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/spain/world-coins/spain-ferdinand-andamp-isabella-1474-1516-gold-2-excelentes-nd-after-1497-s-ms65-ngc-/a/3061-32517.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
RE: "... killing the market for labels."
Sounds like a good thing.
IMO, there is a "historical" difference between FS, FBL, and FB. They were not even thought of or considered by the very old generation of collectors (that's me). Therefore, while a coin missing one of these designations can be considered to be not fully struck in a technical sense, it did not matter to anyone. Now it does. BTW, when the "Technical" grading system was developed to ID coins at the DC Certification Services there were several designations for a coin's strike:
Back then, virtually all coins without FS, FB, or FBL were considered NORMAL. That "new" designation FT on dimes was not even thought of until recent time.
Now, with the knowledge of how it was long ago, you can perhaps see that the "modern" designations are not quite the same as the "problem" with New Orleans (for example) dollars. They were always known to be flatly struck.
Again, as our grading knowledge has evolved, things are changing. I've noticed a shift back towards technical grading. That is exactly what "details" grading is. Grade the coin state the problem. NO STUPID "NET" GRADING! That is also what calling a weakly struck Morgan dollar MS-66 because it was struck that way is - Technical grading to assess its condition of preservation and NOT its value.
Thanks for your input. Your examples only show that coins of this era and method of manufacture are graded differently than our vintage U.S. coins. I should say more "technically." LOL
I'm sure your informative addition to this discussion will be a big help to the folks
who did not already know this.
did he have both feet down and have control of the ball....was it a catch?....:)
Barrytrot(2),Stupid,Savoyspecial,docq,ecoinquest, halfhunter,snman,Coll3ctor.
wondercoin. Blue594. internetjunky.
keepdachange. Scrapman1077.Ahrensdad, mrmom, mygrandeoso, blu62vette, Clackamas,giorgio11, adriana, cucamongacoin,
@Insider2 Look at you playing nice...
Ignoring for the moment what the TPG's are grading Morgan dollars at these days, let me throw out for discussion a personal observation as to the possible, and maybe even probable, cause of weakly struck centers on Morgan dollars.
Looking at the coins with the naked eye, the fields on the New Orleans coins with the weak centers seem to be a bit flatter relative to Philadelphia Mint coins, which I will use as an arbitrary standard for curvature. In other words the basining of the dies was shallower than the Philly coins. This left the centers of the dies slightly further apart in the press than the Philly coins. It also left the rims of the dies slightly closer together than the Philly dies, producing coins weak in their centers but strong at their rims.
By comparison, the Carson City coins appear to have fields that are more curved than the Philly coins, which would mean that they were basined more deeply than the Philly coins, which would cause the centers to be closer together in the press and the rims further apart. As a result the CC coins have well=struck centers and weak rims.
This is just one way that us old timers could usually tell the Mint of origin of a Morgan dollar from looking at the obverse,
A caveat on the discussion of the rims made above. While at ANACS we received in an off-center "clock" of Morgan dollars in a custom Capital Plastics frame, and many of the coins were identifiable by date and mint. Studying the upset rims of the unstruck areas, you could see that the raised bulges on the New Orleans mint coins were narrower than the Philly coins and closer to the edge of the planchet, which is why the Cajun coins typically have the solid part of the rim well struck, with corresponding wide, flat edges, but denticles that were not well struck up.
The CC coins, on the other hand, had the raised bulge pushed further in towards the center of the planchet than the Philly coins, with a beveled falloff zone outside the bulge towards the edge of the planchet. This is why CC coins often have great denticles but a weak solid ring outside them, and edges that have shorter reedings than the N.O. coins.
The S.F. planchets were very similar to Philly planchets. The only remarkable thing about them is that you could see how the gorgeous semi-proof-like surfaces of the early 1880's were created entirely by the dies on frosted planchets. The dies completely transformed the surface. No burnishing of the planchets was necessary.
TD
@RogerB ,
Some also attribute weakly struck Morgan Dollars to the following:
To conserve their limited Morgan Dollar dies (sometimes received 2nd hand from CC Mint - hence 1900-O/CC) the New Orleans Mint would add a bit more spacing between dies during striking to extend their minting life, to effectively strike more coins per Die pair.
Can you corroborate or comment? - Thanks in advance for your reply.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Stuart -
I've seen nothing in the 1890s and 1900s about any mint doing this. To "extend their minting life" by shortening one of the die stakes (that's the only way to add space) would be counter productive. The dies would not make proper contact with planchets and the result would be poor definition at the rim, center and reeding. The NO problem was to get well struck coins without increasing the pressure, and thus ruining dies.
In real world operation, toggle press striking pressure was regulated by a pair of wedges that fixed the distance between die face and planchet. (See JNR Issue #1 for details of a Smith patent for a Ferrachute toggle press, also From Mine to Mint and Inventions and innovations of Franklin Peale.)
I personally don't count strike very highly into my consideration for grade. I would be more like @FadeToBlack and @Wabbit2313. However, if I am looking at a coin that typically comes well struck such as the '79-'82 SF Morgan's, then strike will certainly be a consideration. With New Orleans Morgan's I just take them as they come, if they have a great strike then it's simply a bonus to me.
I also enjoy very weakly struck coins, I have an '88-O that has a very weak strike that show's the planchet striations and has very few contact marks. I like the coin because it is a great study aide in how the coins were made back then. The coin was graded by ANACS as an MS-63 in the old ANA holder, so I am sure it was held back due to the weak strike.
Good conversation. I am a fan of technical grading... surface condition, strike, detail, luster....I do believe that grading was diluted with the addition of 'eye appeal' to the TPG considerations. It is bad enough that we do not have grading standards, but to add something as nebulous - and generally personal - as eye appeal, just further degenerates the validity of any arbitrary number assigned to a coin. My apologies to those who like 'pretty'...but you can always buy what you like.... no need to add that to the status of a coin. Cheers, RickO
I sorta agree. However, the reason technical grading would never work was this:
Dealers/Ex-dealers were not doing the grading.
AND MOST OF ALL, a coin's eye appeal was not considered to be important. The graders only wished to record a coin's condition of preservation. Any unusual condition such as splotchy color was added: MS-65, splotchy toning or MS-65 Flat strike. Therefore, a flatly struck or splotchy toned flawless gem was graded Choice Unc (at the time MS-65, which was the highest grade for all intents) just as a fully struck BU Choine Unc!
Today, in addition to value, rarity, and pedigree - eye appeal rules!
Is it any wonder why "Grading is Subjective?"
Actually, if there were REAL defined standards, and applied uniformly to coins, I believe it would be widely accepted - eventually. Especially if applied by TPG's. Value (should) have absolutely zero to do with grade...that is a market determination. Rarity is assigned by collector groups and pedigree is a value to individuals and some segments of the market. Gradeflation would be rightfully eliminated. Subjective grading is - IMO - why grading is not grading, but simply opinions. Cheers, RickO
Good discussion! Is there actually such a thing as a fully struck 1890-O, 91-O or 92-O Morgan? I've seen a handful of decent 90-O's, but have never seen a well struck 91-O or 92-O. If anyone has one they consider well struck, please feel free to post it!
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets