Sir Sisu Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 I finally began the process of going through my loose US coins to see which ones fill holes in my collection and comparison of doubles. (I do not want to keep doubles of common dates.) Anyhow, I ran into a slight dilemna today as I was comparing some doubles (Jefferson nickles and Roosevelt dimes). I had 2 examples of each year and one was uncirculated: nice lustre, no scratches, fingerprints, etc. and the other had a small print/dirt?, a few tiny scratches, the first miniscule signs of wear, yet the strike of the second is so much sharper than the first that it is the unc that actually appears to have "wear". Since they are common dates, they are worth little, so I tried to decide on eye appeal, but for the above mentioned reasons they each had eye appeal in their own way. Which would you be more inclined to keep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiffibunny Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 That's a tough question. I think I would have to actually see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedeadpoint Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 Strong stike but circulated! At least you can appreciate that the coin was well-struck and even has some added history. Of course, I'd prefer Strong strike but uncirculated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 XF/AU especially with a strong strike. I find many US series to be most attractive in just that grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dads Stuff Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 I would prefer unc w/luster. I like sparkle and shine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burks Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 I'm the opposite of Dads Stuff. I prefer coins with a strong strike. Luster is always a good addition but without a strong strike I find certain coins to be uninteresting/boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 I'm the opposite of Dads Stuff. I prefer coins with a strong strike. Luster is always a good addition but without a strong strike I find certain coins to be uninteresting/boring. Exactly my thoughts. A weakly struck UNC though UNC, is not a well-made piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 I have to admit surprise. I voted for strong strike, EF/AU over weak strike UNC before reading ony of the comments. True, there are only 6 votes so far (5 to 1), but I didn't expect it to be so one-sided. It is early. I'll be watching to see how this shakes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trantor_3 Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 I do like strong strikes , but I also do like lustrous coins, preferrably not toned. A tough decision, for which I'd need to have the coins in hand.... since there's oinly two options to vote from, I voted "strong strike" since in the end it's about the image on the coin. A lustrous UNC non toned blank is still boring... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 Strong strike, all the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuldFartte Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 Just my opinion, but to me a weak strike kinda ruins the aesthetics of a coin. I'll take the strong strike AU every time, discoloration and all, but I'd have to think about the EF ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.