Are you sure some of that is not PMD from mechanical sorters or something? I agree the coin is weakly struck, but look at all of the marks in the middle. It almost looks like abrasion removed the detail here.
No those were the ticks and hits that were on the blank planchet that were not obliterated by the strike as they usually are.
Oh, ok sir. Hard to tell from photos. Man, that should have been classified as rework at the mint. It is brutal their QC didn't catch that. I agree with rzage, most likely when they were adjusting the machines. At plants where I worked they always took the last 5-10 parts before and after such an adjustment and thrown into rework just to catch these errors. Speaking of, this one is bad enough an error collector might be interested, (just a marketing hint).
@LostDutchman, remember this classic: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/check-this-out-worst-strike-i-have-seen.165674/ Also, this thread same year and MM: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-weakest-struck-walker-i-have-ever-seen.232614/ Coincidence, I think not! This was something you did awhile back that was related and cool: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/strike-characteristics-of-walking-liberty-halves.139277/ I guess those 1940-s are just dreadful sometimes.
Matt, I've seen many instances (though not on Walkers) of similar scratches from a grease filled die with small pieces of debris in the grease. Are you sure this is a weak strike rather than a grease-filled die? Chris
Thinking about this coin, it's exactly what drove me from US collecting. This coin would be slabbed Unc. However, it looks like this. This is why I agree with the way ancient coins grade. This coin left the mint an XF. It is exactly the way if left the mint, of course, but it left the mint missing a lot of details. Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. But in ancients we have no problem calling this coin an XF even though we know it's not worn. Why does it matter? If a coin collector we can agree want perfect coins, why is a weak strike or worn dies an acceptable excuse as to why it's not perfect, but wear is not? I never understood that in US collecting, and still don't. I know the history, I know this decision is like 180 years old, but still it was a serious error, one which US collectors should man up and fix. Btw, no offense meant to you coin Matt.
My guess is XF Details, oh, wait, it's not that kind of thread. Your other threads had very similar looking coins, I guess it's a common problem on these.
I'll readily agree that some are, but definitely not all of them. That coin has a lot of contact marks on it, seen in areas that are struck up, that occurred post strike. Given that, I believe a lot of that chatter in unstruck up areas was also caused by contact marks, which are so evident because they occurred on flat areas. It also has some small scratches in struck up areas, and some wipe marks in the fields where somebody tried to remove spots. That coin has seen some rough handling, probably because it so weakly struck that whoever saved it in the beginning didn't care to try and take care of it properly or protect it.
