This was in recent pocket change which really surprised me. Something this drastic not noticed before now. Is it a grease struck or am I completely off? Thanks again.
Hey @Bargainbidder ? Does that mean "Crazy" ? Looks like normal wear and tear like @potty dollar 1878 says always in my opinion.
I'm not seeing anything to make me lean towards anything but wear, but the missing, or nearly missing, letters could have been grease filled, but I certainly wouldn't call it drastic.
Until you pointed out the missing parts on Monticello, I would have also said it was just worn from looking at the letters. This is most curious. I'm going to throw out a guess that excessive die polishing removed those details. Maybe grease, but I'd imagine it flowing into the deeper (on the die) details during striking and leaving some trace of the missing areas intact. I edited this from "weak strike" since the shallower details should have struck up first. Was polishing of used dies still a thing in 1971?
Thanks @Blasty and my apologies for not stipulating on second set of pics the first is of a 1971 showing the detail on Monticello building as an example and second pic shows coin I was asking for help about. Sorry if I confused anyone.
YEESS! Thank you, someone (besides me) gets it! "Grease filled die" is blamed for nearly every coin that show that shows weal strike details. The overlay (from maddieclashes.com) tells the story;