Weak Strike or Wear

[Sword 1,377]

How easy is it to tell if a coin has wear or simply was weakly struck from an auction photo?

With coin in hand, I would check

a) if the lustre is continuous

loss of toning on the weak areas

(with my limited experience, I would be catious and assume it is wear except in clear cut cases)

However, this is often not possible from a photo. I suppose if a feature is abnormally weak but the rest of the coin is sharp, then it is probably weak strike. A knowledge of the years / features that are particularly prone to weak striking would be very handy but I have little such knowledge. Hence I have avoided coins described as "weak on high points probably due to striking rather than wear" just to be safe.

How can experts tell? Is there just no substitute for experience? Are there many cases which you just can't tell from photos?

How much premium is a particularly strong struck unc worth compared to "normal" unc? E.g. most Victorian Old Head currency crowns (even those graded as unc) have lost some detail on the strap across St George's chest due to striking. Would an example with the strap (and other details) fully struck up be a lot more desirable?

[argentumandcoins 70]

How easy is it to tell if a coin has wear or simply was weakly struck from an auction photo?

With coin in hand, I would check

a) if the lustre is continuous

loss of toning on the weak areas

(with my limited experience, I would be catious and assume it is wear except in clear cut cases)

However, this is often not possible from a photo. I suppose if a feature is abnormally weak but the rest of the coin is sharp, then it is probably weak strike. A knowledge of the years / features that are particularly prone to weak striking would be very handy but I have little such knowledge. Hence I have avoided coins described as "weak on high points probably due to striking rather than wear" just to be safe.

How can experts tell? Is there just no substitute for experience? Are there many cases which you just can't tell from photos?

How much premium is a particularly strong struck unc worth compared to "normal" unc? E.g. most Victorian Old Head currency crowns (even those graded as unc) have lost some detail on the strap across St George's chest due to striking. Would an example with the strap (and other details) fully struck up be a lot more desirable?

It is a best guess when looking at pictures and sometimes even with the coin in hand. Experience plays a large part on some denominations/monarchs (early George V for example has been well documented on here).

Wishy washy arse covering descriptions are best avoided full stop. Always try to buy a fully struck example wherever possible, but be prepared to pay a premium for it!

[scott 140]

if it is George V then usualy one side is stron if the other is weak.

you will know, the rim would be a good judge.

[Peckris 579]

Consider a coin that is less than fully struck up as always less desirable than a sharp, clear specimen. A strong and attractive EF might even fetch a higher price for example than an UNC that was a weak strike. But I remember in the old strict days of grading when Fine was described in the usual way then it said "or design weak through faulty striking". From UNC to Fine in one fell swoop!

Bear in mind also that some designs are notoriously weak, but also some dates: 1917 sixpences being a case in point.

[Nicholas 51]

I guess the art here is to know when a coin is well or poorly struck. Coin wear is uniform across coin and easier to recognise.

Milled: under magnification poorly struck coins lack detail on high or low points of a coin

Hammered: strike is rarely even, so judge the strike on the sharpest area of the coin.

[Mr T 171]

But I remember in the old strict days of grading when Fine was described in the usual way then it said "or design weak through faulty striking". From UNC to Fine in one fell swoop!

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier.

[Coinery 1,005]

But I remember in the old strict days of grading when Fine was described in the usual way then it said "or design weak through faulty striking". From UNC to Fine in one fell swoop!

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier.

I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin!

Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that?

[Peckris 579]

But I remember in the old strict days of grading when Fine was described in the usual way then it said "or design weak through faulty striking". From UNC to Fine in one fell swoop!

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier.

I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin!

Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that?

Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF).

[TomGoodheart 378]

Hammered: strike is rarely even, so judge the strike on the sharpest area of the coin.

True. But I doubt I'm alone in being more forgiving if the wear is to the legends or reverse, leaving a nice portrait.

And if the portrait is as sharp as a razor but also weak, it will probably be less desirable to me than a coin which has circulated but shows the design well.

In other words ... eye appeal is King!

[Sword 1,377]

But I remember in the old strict days of grading when Fine was described in the usual way then it said "or design weak through faulty striking". From UNC to Fine in one fell swoop!

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier.

I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin!

Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that?

For me, probably neither. If the weak-struck UNC example cost twice or more compared to the ciculated fine, then I would prefer to get an honest VF example. For me the VF would have better eye appeal.

[Sword 1,377]

But I remember in the old strict days of grading when Fine was described in the usual way then it said "or design weak through faulty striking". From UNC to Fine in one fell swoop!

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier.

I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin!

Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that?

Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF).

I wonder how serious weak strucking is compared to the other "defects". For example, if you were keen to get a George VI or William VI halfcrown in unc condition and you have a choice of:

1) Nicely struck example with a trace of cabinet friction (but would still just grade as unc by modern day standards)

2) A weaker struck example with full lustre and no wear (but would only grade as EF or GEF if the loss of details is actually due to wear rather than stricking)

3) Nicely struck example with no wear but has some contact marks (and hence also just grade as unc)

Hypothetically, which one would you prefer?

[Peckris 579]

But I remember in the old strict days of grading when Fine was described in the usual way then it said "or design weak through faulty striking". From UNC to Fine in one fell swoop!

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier.

I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin!

Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that?

Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF).

I wonder how serious weak strucking is compared to the other "defects". For example, if you were keen to get a George VI or William VI halfcrown in unc condition and you have a choice of:

1) Nicely struck example with a trace of cabinet friction (but would still just grade as unc by modern day standards)

2) A weaker struck example with full lustre and no wear (but would only grade as EF or GEF if the loss of details is actually due to wear rather than stricking)

3) Nicely struck example with no wear but has some contact marks (and hence also just grade as unc)

Hypothetically, which one would you prefer?

I'm not sure who William VI is, but as far as George VI goes, his halfcrowns are common enough in perfect state without having to settle for one of those 3 options.

However, if it was a 19thC halfcrown, I think I would go for option 1. No, DEFINITELY option 1! Option 3 might be ok, but it would depend on exactly how the contact marks look. I guess that's true of all coins though - how it looks in hand.

[Sword 1,377]

But I remember in the old strict days of grading when Fine was described in the usual way then it said "or design weak through faulty striking". From UNC to Fine in one fell swoop!

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier.

I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin!

Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that?

Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF).

I wonder how serious weak strucking is compared to the other "defects". For example, if you were keen to get a George VI or William VI halfcrown in unc condition and you have a choice of:

1) Nicely struck example with a trace of cabinet friction (but would still just grade as unc by modern day standards)

2) A weaker struck example with full lustre and no wear (but would only grade as EF or GEF if the loss of details is actually due to wear rather than stricking)

3) Nicely struck example with no wear but has some contact marks (and hence also just grade as unc)

Hypothetically, which one would you prefer?

I'm not sure who William VI is, but as far as George VI goes, his halfcrowns are common enough in perfect state without having to settle for one of those 3 options.

However, if it was a 19thC halfcrown, I think I would go for option 1. No, DEFINITELY option 1! Option 3 might be ok, but it would depend on exactly how the contact marks look. I guess that's true of all coins though - how it looks in hand.

Sorry, I meant William IV and George IV. :D

I would choose option 1 too. Mainly because of eye appeal

[Mr T 171]

I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin!

Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that?

I'd probably go with whichever showed more detail (probably the uncirculated one but I guess it depends). But I wouldn't be paying much more for it.

But I'd probably go with sword's option of a VF rather than two that look Fine.

[Red Riley 2]

I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin!

Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that?

I'd probably go with whichever showed more detail (probably the uncirculated one but I guess it depends). But I wouldn't be paying much more for it.

But I'd probably go with sword's option of a VF rather than two that look Fine.

I think this whole thing comes down to the ridiculous 'uncirculated' grade. I'm not actually sure, but I think when the grading system we now use started, God knows how long ago, the 'uncirculated' grade didn't exist for the very good reason that it is a grade which relies on a status rather than a condition and why have a grade which works on a fundamentally different premise to every other? Coins produced in some years are notorious for being poorly struck, a prime example being 1920 pennies - I've never seen one fully struck up on both sides and in the cold light of day the overall amount of detail is almost always less than a run of the mill 1922 (a particularly good year) in VF! Commercial considerations being what they are, a coin with no obvious wear will always be classed as uncirculated whereas graded on the overall level of detail it may well drop a grade or two. This leads to unsatisfactory quasi-grades such as 'about uncirculated for issue' which in the cold light of day is a total nonsense.

OK, rant over. I feel better for that...

[Peckris 579]

...Coins produced in some years are notorious for being poorly struck, a prime example being 1920 pennies - I've never seen one fully struck up on both sides and in the cold light of day the overall amount of detail is almost always less than a run of the mill 1922 (a particularly good year) in VF!...

That's entirely due to the new obverse die introduced in 1921 - the 'shallow portrait' version that we also see on halfcrowns, florins and shillings. Before it, Britannia was rarely fully struck up in any year from 1913 onwards, apart from the 'recessed ear' varieties of 1915 and 1916.

[Mr T 171]

I think this whole thing comes down to the ridiculous 'uncirculated' grade. I'm not actually sure, but I think when the grading system we now use started, God knows how long ago, the 'uncirculated' grade didn't exist for the very good reason that it is a grade which relies on a status rather than a condition and why have a grade which works on a fundamentally different premise to every other?

So that explains old catalogues with no price for uncirculated.

[Rob 3,104]

I think this whole thing comes down to the ridiculous 'uncirculated' grade. I'm not actually sure, but I think when the grading system we now use started, God knows how long ago, the 'uncirculated' grade didn't exist for the very good reason that it is a grade which relies on a status rather than a condition and why have a grade which works on a fundamentally different premise to every other?

So that explains old catalogues with no price for uncirculated.

Old Seaby lists and Spink Circulars used FDC for an as struck, well struck currency coin for many years. UNC is a relatively recent description

[scott 140]

1906 and 1918 are the 2 worst years for this.

I did see a nice well struck 1920 on ebay the other day.

but i do not see where you draw a line, because its the same for the early milled, you can get clear writing, great details and, Britannia is missing a head

[Coinery 1,005]

I think it all comes down to an attempt to best describe the grade of your coin, using contemporary descriptors, as best as you can. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you're buying two VF coins (in your opinion), one from a dealer, described as NVF, and one from eBay, described as GEF, you still have to decide for yourself what you have, and whether you're pleased with it. You won't find out whether you bought well until you come to sell it.

When it comes down to selling a coin, it's very difficult in a world now full of UNCs, not to use the term yourself. 95% of coin collectors probably still rely on someone else to tell them what grade their coin is, which means if my coin is better than someone else's 'UNC' and I call it a GEF or AU, it's never even going to get looked at! Personally, I 'm still trying to be true to my own standards, but it doesn't line the pockets so well!

[Peckris 579]

I think it all comes down to an attempt to best describe the grade of your coin, using contemporary descriptors, as best as you can. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you're buying two VF coins (in your opinion), one from a dealer, described as NVF, and one from eBay, described as GEF, you still have to decide for yourself what you have, and whether you're pleased with it. You won't find out whether you bought well until you come to sell it.

When it comes down to selling a coin, it's very difficult in a world now full of UNCs, not to use the term yourself. 95% of coin collectors probably still rely on someone else to tell them what grade their coin is, which means if my coin is better than someone else's 'UNC' and I call it a GEF or AU, it's never even going to get looked at! Personally, I 'm still trying to be true to my own standards, but it doesn't line the pockets so well!

Which makes the whole grading thing a complete joke, as far as eBay sales are concerned - especially if honest and expert collector/dealers are having to use the same ridiculous methods to ensure their listing gets looked at.

What we need is a specialist online coin auction with the popularity of eBay but the strict standards of London Coins.

[Rob 3,104]

What we need is a specialist online coin auction with the popularity of eBay but the strict standards of London Coins.

By definition this must be mutually exclusive. If there are say for example 1% of coins extant that are uncirculated (this is over-optimistic)then any online coin auction could only hope to get the same small percentage of people to use it because most things out there are crap and will always be so, but everyone wants to maximise their return and if this means calling something unc just to get eyeballs, then this is what will be done. It's a free country and not criminal to overgrade in the literal sense, but a combination of ignorance and a moral compass pointing south will ensure that an honest description will never be popular with the masses.

I just wish a few more people would open an account with a scrap metal merchant.

[Peckris 579]

What we need is a specialist online coin auction with the popularity of eBay but the strict standards of London Coins.

By definition this must be mutually exclusive. If there are say for example 1% of coins extant that are uncirculated (this is over-optimistic)then any online coin auction could only hope to get the same small percentage of people to use it because most things out there are crap and will always be so, but everyone wants to maximise their return and if this means calling something unc just to get eyeballs, then this is what will be done. It's a free country and not criminal to overgrade in the literal sense, but a combination of ignorance and a moral compass pointing south will ensure that an honest description will never be popular with the masses.

I just wish a few more people would open an account with a scrap metal merchant.

Oh, if ONLY coin grading could be brought within the Trades Description Act! (I do realise it couldn't be, but I can dream).