| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 1,556 |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Help edjamacate me here, CCF. Are there any (sorta) generalities one can assume regarding the strike quality of Lincolns? Years/mints known for poor strikes, ones which one should expect an excellent strike? We can stick to pre-1930 issues for the moment to avoid clogging the thread.
I'm looking at a 1916, in particular. There's a small-but-usually-dealbreaker issue on the reverse, but the strike is staggering. If 1916's aren't generally known for good strikes, I'm going to snag this one. If they are, I pass.
Help?
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
659 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
Well, I believe some years in th 1920's were weak strikes for cents (I'm thinking early-mid 1920s).
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19931 Posts |
In 1915, the master hubs were "sharpened" after the run from 1909-1914 they were showing wear. That's why you see nice, detailed 1915 cents. New master hubs were created in 1916 so pretty much all coins have excellent detail. This throws-off people that don't know that and they seem to get overly excited when they see a sharp 1916. If you're looking at a 1916, it should have extreme detail, especially in the beard. That is NORMAL and not anything special. Stay away from less than perfectly struck 1916's.
In general, the quality and strike started to degrade in 1920. This carried though to 1925 where the 1924/25 issues were just horrible, the worst of the entire Lincoln series. Not only in strike but in planchet quality too. Things started to improve a bit in 1926 and by 1929 things were "almost" better; however, even some 1929's had issues. In 1930 things turned the corner and quality improved for the most part. Denver had a few problems, but it was nothing like the mid-20's.
Hope this helps my friend!
Edited by BadThad
09/22/2011 2:41 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2130 Posts |
Great info BadThad. It helped me.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
10743 Posts |
I don't know if this helped Super Dave or not but, it certainly helped me. Now, to file this info away.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19931 Posts |
Glad you all enjoyed the post. I should also mention that the Philly mint has always been the better of the three. Their coins were vastly superior to the banch mints. As I recall, Philly was producing the dies for D/S and they had problems getting them to the other mints (forgot why). That's why D/S over-used dies often....that and poor workmanship i.e. workers who were not concerned about quality. Here's a pic of one of my 1916's that shows the detail to expect in these (from all 3 mints):  Lincoln Cent Lover!VERDI-CARE™ INVENTOR https://verdi.care/
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
687 Posts |
How does a 1916 like that compare to a well struck 1909?
Edited by RollHunter
09/22/2011 10:08 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19931 Posts |
1916 is more detailed and defined.
Lincoln Cent Lover!VERDI-CARE™ INVENTOR https://verdi.care/
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
Wish today's cents looked more like that 1916.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Thanks, guys. BadThad, you're a font of information. So this isn't that extraordinary:  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1256 Posts |
You still might pass but that's a very nice strike despite the year.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
I might get a 1916 cent for a type specimen! Do 1916 cents usually have textured fields like quarters, dimes and halves from the same year? Was that the style of the earlier years too?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19931 Posts |
Quote:
So this isn't that extraordinary:
Not really, not sure if it's the light and camera angle, but the surfaces look funky. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1745 Posts |
This book, with the foreword by our own coppercoins, is an excellent resource.  |
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 1,556 |
|
Posted 09/22/2011 2:36 pm
