This was a recent purchase of mine. This coin has blistering luster, and no details. Poor miss liberty is completely missing her ear, though she has strong hair details and strength in other areas. Is this the "no ear" variety, lol. Anyways, it's interesting to me, and was very cheap. What do you think she grades??
Looks like a die crack near the date at the right. If it unc. then I can't give it more than a 63 with that kind of strike. Otherwise AU-55.
I think the dies clashed enough to damage one another, causing the weak looking strike. :kewl: Ribbit
Look carefully at the date, it looks like the last 2 "66" at least are recut numerals. There are a lot of 3 cent Ni. that have recut dates, clashes, and cracked dies. Jim
It appears to be just a weak strike. Not enough force for the metal to flow into the highest point of the design - the ear on the obverse, and the middle of the reverse side.
It was my understanding that when the dies got badly cracked, the striking pressure was reduced to try and preserve the dies a little longer. Jim
I take back what I said about clashed dies. It doesn't jive with the areas affected. :goofer: Regardless, DG may be onto something. :thumb: Ribbit
If you can, check the weight against tolerances. If the planchet were too thin, thaat could cause problems with the detail not striking up as well. Either way, it's not that unusual. I have a few 3-cent pieces with various areas of extreme weakness.
Check that date, Check that date plus other areas of this coin - there are many die varieties in this series. Ben Peters
I suspect the Mint knew the obverse die was on its last legs. But with the cost of die production so high they decided to make it last as long as possible. How? Reduce the striking pressure. Hence the VERY weak reverse (lack of detail in the "III") and obverse (lack of detail in the hair).
I think that if you take a close look at the area behind Liberty's hair and to the right of the date and compare the marks there with the corresponding area on the reverse, it sure looks (to me) like a die clash. As far as the obverse die being on its last legs, I don't see any damage other than the clash and that's relatively minor. Certainly not bad enough to be fearful of the die's remaining life. While I agree that the striking pressure was less than adequate, I don't think it was done deliberately to save the die. We've all seen coins showing multiple actual cracks with no evidence of trying to prolong their use. Is this perhaps a thin planchet? Do we know the weight?
Looking at it again, I think that what I took for a die break is indeed die clash marks. Can't tell if it's a thin planchet without a weight. Or another possibility. Die clash occurs. Dies removed for polishing. This coin was one of the first strikes after they were replaced. The striking pressure had not yet been readjusted properly. I don't see die polishing on the obverse, but there are suspicious lines on the reverse running 2-8.
If you look at the ribbon at the bottom of the reverse it appears pretty full to me which indicates an early die state. Weak strikes were common with early die states but this is ultra weak suggesting that a combination of weak strike and a possibly thin planchet could cause this. And as Kanga said they still could have been adjusting preassure. I always look at the ribbon because as the dies are polished the ribbon will dissapear from the bottom up. That is the easiest place for me to spot relative die state. usually the more the dies are polished down, the better the strike because the die is actually shallower. I like to find a combination of early die state and strong strike. Not real common.
