I voted scrape, although it looks shallower than I would normally call a scrape, as it doesn't look to have moved much material. I personally would describe it as having been grazed in that area.
Looks like a scrape to me. Looks like when I used to fall off my bicycle, little less bloody but equally painful. I'm interested to know more of the coin, considering I see a clash up by the neck line.
Since "scuff" wasn't a choice, I picked "scrape". It looks like the marks were all caused by the same object and action. "Scratches" to me implies separate actions. Same with "hairlines", although you can put down a lot of hairlines with a single wipe -- but I also think of them as covering more of the coin, and being less pronounced. "Gouge" would be deeper and more likely singular, and "rub" would be shallower and more subtle. That's my taxonomy, anyhow; how close am I?
In an attempt to get all of us on the same page using the same terms: I'm going to be posting more characteristics we see on coins in the form of micrographs - no entire coins. I will give my opinion on what they are called based on a very, very, long time viewing them using a stereo scope. Your posted opinions will be helpful after you vote in the poll. I am not a KIA when I post any of my opinions and disagreements. You can either adopt my personal "chosen" term or keep your own. jeffB, posted: "Since "scuff" wasn't a choice, I picked "scrape". I think a "scuff" and a "scrape" are basically the same thing with the same cause; however, a "scuff" would be "lighter" than a scrape and cause less damage. It looks like the marks were all caused by the same object and action. "Scratches" to me implies separate actions. This scrape is made up of many scratches but "scratched" does not convey what this mark looks like. Same with "hairlines", although you can put down a lot of hairlines with a single wipe -- but I also think of them as covering more of the coin, and being less pronounced. Not Hairlines as they are extremely less pronounced. "Gouge" would be deeper and more likely singular, and "rub" would be shallower and more subtle." This is the kind of post we all can learn from! That's my taxonomy, anyhow; how close am I?" ANSWER: This mark is best called a "scrape"
I went with scrape; too wide for a scratch and to shallow for a gouge. Maybe "scrouge" is a better term.
BETTER ANSWER...IMO: This mark is best called a mark. So many use the term or variation of "mark" as exampled in these posts...and then make the interpretive and subjective decision of adding and/or substituting something else, of which another disagrees with. Better as simply a "mark" or "marks"...even and especially on TPG labels...and allow others to decide what they think. Maybe heavy or light mark/marks...even abrasive marks or scratch marks...disqualifying mark(s), etc...but by at least including the term mark/marks, one isn't passing judgment for what it is/isn't over something else as it appears to another. No matter how hard you try you'll never define/standardize the terms of people's interpretations...and better to simply be leaving it up to the other person(s) to decide for themselves what THEY think the mark(s) is, rather than what many are going to disagree with ("it's a scratch...no, that's a gouge...no it's a scrape...no it's too narrow...it's not wide, thin, deep enough to be...no metal was moved...oh yes I think there was"...and on and on...with all respect for what you're trying to do). Whatever it is/isn't...it most certainly IS a mark...and you'll always be right.
By the same reasoning, instead of debating whether this is a "worn coin" or a "damaged coin" or a "cleaned coin", it might be best to just call it "a coin". It's good to try to convey information, even at the risk that some people might disagree with you or misunderstand you.
jeffB, posted: "I think it's all down to what you're rubbing with, and of course how hard." No, we don't always need to determine the who, what, where, and when to describe what we see on a coin. Additionally, we don't need to be ambiguous either. Indeed, a hit from the reeds of another coin is a mark. Educated numismatists have a name for that particular mark (reed mark or bag mark). Folks can use it or not. What they choose to do defines them to others. Mac McDonald, post: "BETTER ANSWER...IMO: This mark is best called a mark. [PLEASE SEE ABOVE for the difference between being informed or uninformed] So many use the term or variation of "mark" as exampled in these posts...and then make the interpretive and subjective decision of adding and/or substituting something else, of which another disagrees with. Better as simply a "mark" or "marks"...even and especially on TPG labels...and allow others to decide what they think. [Which is often not correct!!] Maybe heavy or light mark/marks...even abrasive marks or scratch marks...disqualifying mark(s), etc...but by at least including the term mark/marks, one isn't passing judgment for what it is/isn't over something else as it appears to another. No matter how hard you try you'll never define/standardize the terms of people's interpretations...and better to simply be leaving it up to the other person(s) to decide for themselves what THEY think the mark(s) is, rather than what many are going to disagree with ("it's a scratch...no, that's a gouge...no it's a scrape...no it's too narrow...it's not wide, thin, deep enough to be...no metal was moved...oh yes I think there was"...and on and on...with all respect for what you're trying to do). Whatever it is/isn't...it most certainly IS a mark...and you'll always be right." The point is not to be right, the point is to be able to describe a characteristic. With just a little practice and study it becomes easy. Our mind is like a computer. Feed in lousy info (It's a mark, they are all marks.) and the result is: