Reasons For A "Weak" Strike
GoldFinger1969
Posts: 3,382 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just wanted to get some of the experts/vets experience here on reasons for the so-called "weak" strike that is often discussed. Not looking to discuss wear vs. strike or stuff like that; we have plenty of threads on that and I didn't want to intrude on them so hence the reason for this thread on the causes only.
I'm just looking for the most common reasons why coins over the last 100-150 years might have weak strikes, including some persistent problems at certain Mints (i.e., New Orleans and MSDs). Most of my focus has been on the larger coins I collect -- Saints and Morgans -- but feel free to use ANY coins that you are familiar with that suffer from "weak strikes" and whatever caused it.
Whenever coins don't have great eye appeal, luster, or sharp details I hear the phrase "suffers from a weak strike." So I have been doing some research on various coins as to the reasons but some of the complexities are above my pay grade. 
I have these off the top of my head:
- Die curvature is not even or properly done, esp. on the obverse
- Problems with collar alignment
- Poor steel metal die quality
- Impurities in the metal/planchets (i.e., oxygen in copper alloy)
- Striking force of the press and/or other tolerances are off by small amounts
Other factors and causes welcome.
Comments
It’s my understanding that on many occasions, the Mint intentionally calibrated a weaker strike in order to prolong the life of the dies.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I would conjecture that weak strikes are often the result of multiple overlapping causes. The easiest to consider is very basic: the striking pressure wasn't high enough. But while that may be true, on its own it may not explain the "real" cause of the weak strike. Did someone accidentally set the striking force to be too low? Was the die made of lesser quality forcing the striking force to be lessened? Old press that couldn't strike as hard as desired? Did the mint in question get a limited number of dies, and to keep them in use longer, minimized wear by striking with a lower force? Was it a new metal the mint wasn't used to striking yet, and they hadn't accounted for the higher force needed when creating the dies and or setting up the press? Was the press just a lazy government employee?
That's an interesting perspective, APN.
When they were striking many of these coins, the last thing they were probably thinking about was how razor-sharp they might look under a loupe or to the naked eye 100 years in the future...or even in the present. They probably figured if the coins looked a little "flat" -- who cares ? After all, it's going to be in a bag with hundreds of other coins moving around, getting banged up, or even circulated in commerce.
So if a collar or striking tonnage or other things were off by a fraction, I guess maybe it wasn't a concern (unless a higher-up or the Mint Supervisor said something
).
Inconsistent press pressure.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
You can find 1966 quarters struck from brand new dies that barely kissed the planchet. This reduced die wear and then the dies were still used until they were beyond worn out. There was a coin shortage which means a die shortage to the mint. They adjusted accordingly.
Generally poor strikes especially in moderns is caused by low strike pressure resulting from improper die spacing. This is usually inadvertent caused by slop and conflicting goals among the workers. Standards at every point were low resulting in poor quality on every parameter.