Superior Strike Designations

[LINCOLNMAN]

IMHO, I believe that, excepting the FH designation, the superior strike designations are somewhat absurd, as are some of the premiums charged. (Minute reverse details, really?) For fun, what other designations would you suggest? For instance, many 20's Lincolns and Buffs are weakly struck, so a fully or more fully struck example of these years could be recognized by the TPG's  on the holder? Big opportunity for submission fees and bucks for the folks who own better examples. Something like FWE (Full Wheat Ears) or FST (Full Split Tail). The 1921 Peace dollar could be designated FHD (Full Hair Detail). For IHC's - FD (Full Diamonds). You get the idea. 

[Raisethis2]

I'd like to see a strike designation like full thumb on Walkers, full hair on Lincolns, etc on the holder but what might be even more fun would be a well struck designation on coin holders not expected to be well struck for that issue. Imagine a 1945 P Mercury Dime with a Well Struck Designation on it's label? 

[numisport]

Strike designations are needed for sure however I think TPG's should also grade with more respect to strike. In other words how can that MS 67 Buffalo have a weak strike ? Or how about the few '21 Peace dollars in 67 holders. Yes I know market grade right ?

[RWB]

I don't think any of the so-called "full strike" designations are useful, accurate or necessary. First - they do not actually mean that the coin has the fullest possible design detail. All of them concentrate on a tiny area that may or may not have a technical relationship to detail of another areas of the same coin. Further, obverse and reverse details are brought up differently, and one designation cannot fit both. Last, they are not necessary except for those who have abrogated their responsibility to understand the coins they are buying. Even in those cases, there are no standards, so it is all a " shoot" as to any meaning and utility.

Grading of a coin is separate from all other factors including rarity, design, ownership. If grading is to be useful, it must be based on public standards that are consistently and objectively applied.

Visibility of design details might easily be associated with a specific coin, but cannot be part of an assessment of a coin's condition or state of preservation. [Note: MS-70 is exactly as the coin came from the dies - it does not mean perfect in detail - only in having no post-strike impediments.]

[coinman1794]

On 10/13/2017 at 10:12 PM, LINCOLNMAN said:

IMHO, I believe that, excepting the FH designation, the superior strike designations are somewhat absurd, as are some of the premiums charged. (Minute reverse details, really?)

So you're saying that the FH designation is the only relevant one, because it refers to the obverse?

[coinman1794]

I would argue that all of these designations are overblown, and few more so than the 1953-S FBL Franklin half dollar.

[LINCOLNMAN]

21 hours ago, coinman1794 said:

So you're saying that the FH designation is the only relevant one, because it refers to the obverse?

I think it is more relevant because it is on the obverse, at least on the Merc, Jeff and Franklin where the design element that is not fully struck isn't as key to the overall design, IMO, i.e. doesn't have great visual impact. This is especially true in the many cases that are "close", that must be examined under magnification to be certain. Even then there can be disagreement. In the case of the SLQ the design is ruined IMO  in those cases with a flat head. Looks like damage at first glance. Big difference between that and some trivial incomplete lines. I will grant that exceptions may exist when the reverse is really poorly struck, but most of the time seems like the differences are trivial, and price differences are often not trivial.

[World Colonial]

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 3:28 PM, RWB said:

I don't think any of the so-called "full strike" designations are useful, accurate or necessary. First - they do not actually mean that the coin has the fullest possible design detail. All of them concentrate on a tiny area that may or may not have a technical relationship to detail of another areas of the same coin. Further, obverse and reverse details are brought up differently, and one designation cannot fit both. Last, they are not necessary except for those who have abrogated their responsibility to understand the coins they are buying. Even in those cases, there are no standards, so it is all a " shoot" as to any meaning and utility.

Grading of a coin is separate from all other factors including rarity, design, ownership. If grading is to be useful, it must be based on public standards that are consistently and objectively applied.

Visibility of design details might easily be associated with a specific coin, but cannot be part of an assessment of a coin's condition or state of preservation. [Note: MS-70 is exactly as the coin came from the dies - it does not mean perfect in detail - only in having no post-strike impediments.]

Your sentiments are the same as mine, you just said it better.

I do agree with Lincolnman though that the FH on LSQ is more significant than the designations for other series.

I don't collect any of these coins but seems to me the primary motivation today for creating a new one would be another artificial challenge and further inflate the price level.  None of these coins are hard to buy even in "high quality" except with the application of contrived scarcity and quality criteria.

[LINCOLNMAN]

"the primary motivation today for creating a new one would be another artificial challenge and further inflate the price level"

Indeed. I believe I read that the FSB designation is fairly recent - read "marketing".  Brilliant, really. 

[cladking]

I'd like to see two new designations; strong strike and full strike.

Strong strike merely means every part of the strike is there and the coin is reasonably well centered. 

Full strike means that every part of the design is at least 99% complete. The coin is "hammered" or nearly so.

These terms can never  be applied to later die strikes because the detail is eroded from the die long before it wears out. 

This would have the curious effect of denying these terms to the vast majority of Full Step  nickels and the awarding the "Full Strike" designation to many Jeffersons that don't have Full Steps.  I have no doubt collectors would prefer Full Strikes and this goes many times over in the modern coins. 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

21 hours ago, cladking said:

I'd like to see two new designations; strong strike and full strike.

Strong strike merely means every part of the strike is there and the coin is reasonably well centered. 

Full strike means that every part of the design is at least 99% complete. The coin is "hammered" or nearly so.

These terms can never  be applied to later die strikes because the detail is eroded from the die long before it wears out. 

This would have the curious effect of denying these terms to the vast majority of Full Step  nickels and the awarding the "Full Strike" designation to many Jeffersons that don't have Full Steps.  I have no doubt collectors would prefer Full Strikes and this goes many times over in the modern coins. 

Then why not make it simpler...CODD= Complete Original Die Details.

[cladking]

7 hours ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Then why not make it simpler...CODD= Complete Original Die Details.

This would work but I'd like to see an ACODD as well, AlmostCODD. 

As I envision it only one coin in several hundred is sufficiently hammered to get CODD so as to separate the wheat from the chaff a finer gradation is needed to identify the 2 or 3% of coins that are well struck. 

Also I don't like the idea of bad dies that lacked detail when they were new or worn dies getting either designation.  Why should a coin that is hammered from a worn out bad die get stars for being well struck?  I don't see a manifestation of care and craftsmanship looking at such a coin but rather the bold embodiment of our weaknesses and foibles. 

[RWB]

Hmmmm....why not just use "OCD" .... ? 

[numisport]

Could collect proofs then you wouldn't have to worry.

[LINCOLNMAN]

23 minutes ago, numisport said:

Could collect proofs then you wouldn't have to worry.

Not necessarily. Comment, RWB?

[RWB]

On 10/23/2017 at 10:13 PM, LINCOLNMAN said:

Not necessarily. Comment, RWB?

Early proof/master/specimen coins are usually better detailed than production coins. However, during the 1936-42 period, and possibly into 1955, proof commonly have less detail due to over polishing - even with new dies.

[DWLange]

It wasn't until the 1970s that the Mint overcame its tendency to overuse (and overpolish) proof dies.

[RWB]

Thanks Mr. Lange. Good info, as always!

[e1cnr]

a couple ACG's if I recall correctly - full tail on buffalo nickels and full beak on Washington quarters

[physics-fan3.14]

On 10/13/2017 at 10:12 PM, LINCOLNMAN said:

IMHO, I believe that, excepting the FH designation, the superior strike designations are somewhat absurd 

I'm not really sure why a tiny, miniscule detail like FH is any better than any of the other strike designations? FBL, FS, and FT encompass a much larger portion of the coin! 

If you want to talk about a strike designation that legitimately should be added, then Full Thumb on the Walker's are a serious consideration. This reflects how many collectors currently search - a full thumb is a widely accepted unofficial strike designation. 

If you want to get silly, then yeah, Full Ears, Full Horn, Full Talons (for Ike's and SBAs), Full Spaghetti Hair.... why stop there? 

This is one reason why I really like the idea of a TPG splitting up the grade - rather than one "MS-65" that encompasses the whole coin, I would like to see a Strike grade, Luster grade, Eye appeal grade, and Contact marks grade (kind of the way they do with the ancient coins, giving a separate grade to strike and surfaces). I think that would be more useful, really. 

[LINCOLNMAN]

4 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I'm not really sure why a tiny, miniscule detail like FH is any better than any of the other strike designations?

You have seen a SLQ with a flat head, yes? I wouldn't have one, the look just jumps out at you, looks like damage IMO. Not so with FSB, etc., for me anyway.  In the case of a FH,  I would agree that the value difference between "nearly" and "full" can be debated. 

4 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

This is one reason why I really like the idea of a TPG splitting up the grade - rather than one "MS-65" that encompasses the whole coin, I would like to see a Strike grade, Luster grade, Eye appeal grade, and Contact marks grade (kind of the way they do with the ancient coins, giving a separate grade to strike and surfaces). I think that would be more useful, really. 

Totally agree. 

[physics-fan3.14]

4 minutes ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

You have seen a SLQ with a flat head, yes? I wouldn't have one, the look just jumps out at you, looks like damage IMO. Not so with FSB, etc., for me anyway.  In the case of a FH,  I would agree that the value difference between "nearly" and "full" can be debated. 

Got it. To me, they are the same thing - flat bell lines are as unattractive as a flat anything else. Difference in perspective and taste, I suppose. 

[LINCOLNMAN]

5 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Difference in perspective and taste, I suppose. 

Love this hobby.