Weak Strike vs Wear

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in
ups.com:

Eric Babula wrote:

Is there a source that can teach me to tell the difference between
Weak Strike and Wear on an MS/near-MS coin? Books? Internet sites?

Or, do any of you have tell-tale signs that you can describe to me,
that I should look for in order to tell the difference?

Look at some new dimes under magnification. The US Mint
seems to use dime dies longer than they should, so dimes
show pretty bad die-wear to the point it can be hard to
read the last digit of the date without slight magnification.

What I get from looking at dimes: The edge of the die wears
faster than the center. Most of the time. If the coin has
sharp imaging near the center and is blurred near the edge,
I think that pattern comes from die wear not circulation
wear.



My favorite coin to collect is the Morgan Dollar. Now, the early 1880s
O-Mints, especially, are notorious for having weak strike. But, I still
can't tell whether or not there's really wear, there.

What about "mushy coins", like the Peace Dollar, Franklin Half, or
Washington Quarter. Not much detail in the first place. Hard for me to
tell what's what.

Seems like so many of you know what you're doing. Am I the only one who
has this problem?

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

I know it might not be in your field of collecting, but to give you an idea,
the English pennies of early George V are renown for weak strikes and give a
very good example. The following link will take you to a UK website, where
the following coin shows a weak strike on the ear/shoulder area of
Britannia. Although it may appear worn, sometimes substantially, the coin
will have full lustre over the "lower" area which demonstrates it is still
in its struck state.

http://tinyurl.com/4ftne

Hope this helps!

Thanks
Colin


"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
ups.com...
Eric Babula wrote:

Is there a source that can teach me to tell the difference between
Weak
Strike and Wear on an MS/near-MS coin? Books? Internet sites?

Or, do any of you have tell-tale signs that you can describe to me,
that
I should look for in order to tell the difference?

Look at some new dimes under magnification. The US Mint
seems to use dime dies longer than they should, so dimes
show pretty bad die-wear to the point it can be hard to
read the last digit of the date without slight magnification.

What I get from looking at dimes: The edge of the die wears
faster than the center. Most of the time. If the coin has
sharp imaging near the center and is blurred near the edge,
I think that pattern comes from die wear not circulation
wear.

"Eric Babula" wrote in message
1...
Seems like so many of you know what you're doing. Am I the only one who
has this problem?

No, Eric, you are not. I am right in there with you. I have asked the
question about "bag wear" vs. "circulation wear" so many times it hurts.
And never once have I gotten a satisfactory response. That's why I don't go
for MS-rated coins unless the price is so close to the AU price that it
really doesn't make any big difference.

James
'not a BU kind of guy'

Eric Babula wrote:

Alan Williams wrote in
:

I can say the same thing Phil said in different language. ;-) Wear
is the loss of metal from the coin. If the surface is 'unbroken;,
then even if details are missing you are looking at a weak strike.
Wear becomes very obvious under magnification and with experience.
It shows as metal loss, not lack of compression at the mint.

Alan
'sees much wear'


But, but, but, I might be seeing rub from contact with another coin in
the Mint bag. How does that factor in? How can you tell the difference
between that, and actual wear from circulation?

Maybe things are different in the world of Silver Dollars, where, I'm
told, coins might share a bag for decades! But in the bag, usually the
worst that can happen is a 'hit', where the rim or edge of one coin
marks the face of another. I've quite a few coins that show the 'two
teeth bite mark' of having been smacked by a reeded edge. I suppose
these hits must break the luster since they indent the coin, but that's
not the kind of 'luster break' the other posters are referring to, I
think.


If a coin has never been in circulation, but suffers luster break from
coming in contact with other coins in the Mint bag, it should still be
graded MS, shouldn't it?

Ira's comments about 'butt-ugly' MS -60's echo in my mind here. ;-)
There are, for example, a number of Early Commemorative Half Dollars
that were roughly handled at the Mint. Some are severely bagmarked, but
still 'MS' with unbroken luster and no circulation wear (metal loss on
the high points of the design). What Ira eludes to is correct, IMO,
that a coin with light circulation wear and no major hits will be
preferred in the market to one with no circulation wear but many contact
marks, scratches and gouges from rough mint handling or bag transport.

I had the experience of receiving several machine-wrapped rolls of Peace
and Keelboat nickels last year, and while they all qualified as 'MS',
many examples had distracting scratches and gouges from encountering the
rims of their siblings. Sometimes this contact is even hard enough to
'splatter' a number or letter. ;-/ They are uncirculated, certainly,
but desirable? Not really. Not given the huge numbers produced that
managed to escape in a pristine condition. Nickels are extremely hard,
and often I find ones struck by fatigued dies, where the dates and
design elements are mushy, yet the mint luster is still present.

I think it's possible for circulation wear, especially light wear, to be
passed off as strike weakness, or more charitably stated , to be
mistaken for it. But the more of any given series you see, the more
obvious the differences become, IMO.

As for face to face contact in bags producing enough rub to mimic
circulation wear, I'm not expert enough to say that it's possible or
not, but I'd tend to doubt it plays much of a factor.

Alan
'that's not a hole, it's a bag puncture'

Eric Babula wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Eric Babula wrote:

Is there a source that can teach me to tell the difference
between
Weak Strike and Wear on an MS/near-MS coin? Books? Internet
sites?

Look at some new dimes under magnification. The US Mint
seems to use dime dies longer than they should, so dimes
show pretty bad die-wear to the point it can be hard to
read the last digit of the date without slight magnification.

What I get from looking at dimes: The edge of the die wears
faster than the center. Most of the time. If the coin has
sharp imaging near the center and is blurred near the edge,
I think that pattern comes from die wear not circulation
wear.

What about "mushy coins", like the Peace Dollar, Franklin Half, or
Washington Quarter. Not much detail in the first place. Hard for me
to
tell what's what.

Seems like so many of you know what you're doing. Am I the only one
who
has this problem?

Chuckle. The whole reason I used brand new dimes as an
example is brand new coins are the only ones you can be
reasonably certain that any wear was on the die not
while in circulation. If I see the cashier unroll a
bunch of shiney-edge dimes and then I see that the
dimes suck, I know I got bad die-wear. No way I can do
that with older demoninations.

But my point of wear patterns: center still clear edge
bad. Have others seen this?

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
ups.com...
But my point of wear patterns: center still clear edge
bad. Have others seen this?

One can see this in circulated large cents and bust halves. The coin metal
in the center didn't have to flow much during striking, but the metal at the
edges did, dragging across the die surface and causing radiating lines,
sometimes "tying" the stars to the rim, for example. Since the dies in that
era were used until they were absolutely used up, coins showing this feature
can be fairly easily found.

James

You have to be familar with the striking characteristics of the
various years and mints
in a series. Most series have a specialist guidebook available with
a page about every date
and mintmark.

Here is a well known horribly struck issue

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3955447974

Phil DeMayo wrote in
news:1107203320.aa76345ac08e5c1854cc36d8699d16da@t eranews:

On 31 Jan 2005 19:06:41 GMT, Eric Babula wrote:

Is there a source that can teach me to tell the difference between Weak
Strike and Wear on an MS/near-MS coin? Books? Internet sites?

Look for the luster.

View the suspect area from various angles. If there is unbroken luster
present it is a weak strike. If there is no luster....wear.

Yet another one: What's the best way to tell if there's 100% luster
under dark toning on, say, early copper? I mean, most early copper I've
seen is a pretty chocolatey brown. Makes it hard to tell if there's any
luster there, doesn't it?

Eric Babula
Milwaukee, WI USA

Alan Williams wrote in news:41FEAB35.11F53574
@atlanticbb.net:

Thanks for your thoughts, Alan! So, you're kinda the cent expert. How do
you "see" full luster on a dark, chocolate brown early copper cent? I'm
thinking the dark brown toning will pretty much cover the luster, wouldn't
it?

I have some Half Cents that might be BU, or might be AU. I dunno.


Eric Babula
Milwaukee, WI USA

lost

Doug Freyburger wrote:

(snip)

But my point of wear patterns: center still clear edge
bad. Have others seen this?

Yes, that's often true with nickels, but not 100%. I've often seen
average strike on the portrait and mushy, poorly struck dates and
legends near the rims. But sometimes the hair details are also poorly
struck, which I've interpreted as extremely late die state or machine
running at higher than spec speed. ;-)

Alan
'Tom can be bald, sometimes'